My idea for a reduced Avanti timetable

[CW2]

[Warning - I've sharpened the crayons again ...]
Loooking only at Euston departures - so no attempt to link with arrivals, validate turnround times, etc., my first stab at a reduced Avanti standard hour timetable would be:

Current:
xx:00 Manchester
xx:03 Birmingham
xx:07 Liverpool
xx:10 Chester / N.Wales
xx:20 Manchester
xx:23 Birmingham
xx:30 Glasgow
xx:40 Manchester
xx:43 Scotland via Birmingham

Proposed:
xx:02 Liverpool
xx:20 Manchester
xx:23 Birmingham
xx:30 Glasgow
xx:40 Manchester
xx:43 Scotland via Birmingham

xx:00 Manchester fast via Stoke cancelled.
xx:03 Birmingham via Rugby cancelled.
xx:10 Chester - N.Wales amended to start from Crewe, connecting out of xx:02 Liverpool (see below).

The xx:02 Liverpool would call at Rugby instead of the xx:03 Birmingham, then pick up its own path north of Rugby. At Crewe it would connect into a Crewe - Chester / N.Wales shuttle vice the xx:10 ex Euston.

EDIT: Would need a Macclesfield stop adding to the xx:20 Manchester as well.

 

[Peter0124]

[Warning - I've sharpened the crayons again ...]
Loooking only at Euston departures - so no attempt to link with arrivals, validate turnround times, etc., my first stab at a reduced Avanti standard hour timetable would be:

Current:
xx:00 Manchester
xx:03 Birmingham
xx:07 Liverpool
xx:10 Chester / N.Wales
xx:20 Manchester
xx:23 Birmingham
xx:30 Glasgow
xx:40 Manchester
xx:43 Scotland via Birmingham

Proposed:
xx:02 Liverpool
xx:20 Manchester
xx:23 Birmingham
xx:30 Glasgow
xx:40 Manchester
xx:43 Scotland via Birmingham

xx:00 Manchester fast via Stoke cancelled.
xx:03 Birmingham via Rugby cancelled.
xx:10 Chester - N.Wales amended to start from Crewe, connecting out of xx:02 Liverpool (see below).

The xx:02 Liverpool would call at Rugby instead of the xx:03 Birmingham, then pick up its own path north of Rugby. At Crewe it would connect into a Crewe - Chester / N.Wales shuttle vice the xx:10 ex Euston.

Sounds good, I hate what they done with the Euston-Glasgow fasts bringing them down to xx:10 just to keep the Euston-Crewe tph the same. If Euston-Glasgow is still requiring a call at Crewe then xx:25 or xx:28 would be a better departure time for it rather than xx:10. I'm also hoping the xx:43 Euston-Birmingham-Scot is extended back to Glasgow Central alongside its current extension to Edinburgh.

In terms of the set diagrams I reckon they would interwork the Liverpool services with Glasgow via Trent Valley ie:
xx.37 Glasgow-Euston forms xx.02 Euston-Liverpool forms xx.47 Liverpool-Euston forms xx.30 Euston-Glasgow something like that.

 

[87015]

Sounds good, I hate what they done with the Euston-Glasgow fasts bringing them down to xx:10 just to keep the Euston-Crewe tph the same. If Euston-Glasgow is still requiring a call at Crewe then xx:25 or xx:28 would be a better departure time for it rather than xx:10. I'm also hoping the xx:43 Euston-Birmingham-Scot is extended back to Glasgow Central alongside its current extension to Edinburgh.

In terms of the set diagrams I reckon they would interwork the Liverpool services with Glasgow via Trent Valley ie:
xx.37 Glasgow-Euston forms xx.02 Euston-Liverpool forms xx.47 Liverpool-Euston forms xx.30 Euston-Glasgow something like that.

Tenner says Glasgow is at xx10. Nothing complicated is going to be done with such a late decision as not enough notice.

 

[Peter0124]

Tenner says Glasgow is at xx10. Nothing complicated is going to be done with such a late decision as not enough notice.

Ahh, well I reckon the timetable will be the same as the one which started May 18th and ended July 5th.

xx:07 Liverpool
xx:10 Glasgow
xx:20 Manchester via Stoke
xx:23 Birmingham
xx:40 Manchester via Crewe
xx:43 Scotland via Birmingham (Terminated at Preston though)
with the odd Wales service at some point.

Glasgow-Euston (Later arrival too!) interworked with xx:20 Euston-Manchester and vice versa, theyll probably just use the same diagrams from back then with a few small changes.

 

[CW2]

The easiest thing to do would be to reinstate the previous timetable, warts and all.
Given the pressure on time and resources, that's probably what they will do.
I think it is "suboptimal", to be kind to it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The easiest thing to do would be to reinstate the previous timetable, warts and all.
Given the pressure on time and resources, that's probably what they will do.
I think it is "suboptimal", to be kind to it.

Which previous timetable? There would be no sense in reinstating the pre-VHF 110mph timetable, nor does splitting London-Brum and Brum-Scotland make any sense because the newer timetable is more stock-and-staff-efficient, not less.

The easiest way to reduce it is to implement the 2-track timetable, i.e. cancel one Manc, one Brum and remove the North Wales south of Crewe.

That does leave 40 minute gaps, but as most people travel on Advances on IC services that matters a lot less, as people won't just rock up at Euston looking for the next train.

If demand doesn't ever return, it would make sense to rework things around an even half-hourly interval which would allow more sensible south Manchester and Birmingham local services, but it isn't worth drawing conclusion on that yet. I think post-COVID demand might actually increase as people move away from London - it's the London commuter services that will have demand stay low, I reckon, and I'd further reckon you could probably switch LNR to an all-week Sunday timetable (give or take the morning bit), let alone Saturday.

 

[CW2]

Which previous timetable? <snip>

I meant the one which applied May to July, as noted by Peter0124 above.
I concur with your conclusions.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Which previous timetable? There would be no sense in reinstating the pre-VHF 110mph timetable, nor does splitting London-Brum and Brum-Scotland make any sense because the newer timetable is more stock-and-staff-efficient, not less.

The easiest way to reduce it is to implement the 2-track timetable, i.e. cancel one Manc, one Brum and remove the North Wales south of Crewe.

That does leave 40 minute gaps, but as most people travel on Advances on IC services that matters a lot less, as people won't just rock up at Euston looking for the next train.

If demand doesn't ever return, it would make sense to rework things around an even half-hourly interval which would allow more sensible south Manchester and Birmingham local services, but it isn't worth drawing conclusion on that yet. I think post-COVID demand might actually increase as people move away from London - it's the London commuter services that will have demand stay low, I reckon, and I'd further reckon you could probably switch LNR to an all-week Sunday timetable (give or take the morning bit), let alone Saturday.

It’s not difficult to work out the poster meant the standard timetable as was in, say, January 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not difficult to work out the poster meant the standard timetable as was in, say, January 2020.

They didn't, as that wasn't reduced! It seems they meant the timetable that applied just after the original lockdown.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

They didn't, as that wasn't reduced! It seems they meant the timetable that applied just after the original lockdown.

“The previous timetable, warts and all.”

Very obviously the normal, pre-Covid and full timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

“The previous timetable, warts and all.”

Very obviously the normal, pre-Covid and full timetable.

No, he didn't!

I meant the one which applied May to July, as noted by Peter0124 above.
I concur with your conclusions.

 

[tetudo boy]

The xx:02 Liverpool would call at Rugby instead of the xx:03 Birmingham, then pick up its own path north of Rugby.

Sound's like a good idea to have the Liverpool service make an extra stop at Rugby, possibly to provide access to towns near London along the WCML. Also, I actually went on a Virgin Train to Liverpool from London that actually stopped at Rugby rather than passing through the station like always. Possibly due to the strike's that occurred in October last year. Sadly, the train terminated short at Crewe. But that event reminded me of how convenient it is to stop at Rugby.
You could also possibly extend the London to MKC stopper to Rugby via Northampton, just for more access.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tenner says Glasgow is at xx10. Nothing complicated is going to be done with such a late decision as not enough notice.

No takers for that bet!

The easiest thing to do would be to reinstate the previous timetable, warts and all.
Given the pressure on time and resources, that's probably what they will do.
I think it is "suboptimal", to be kind to it.

It’s not that easy though. The ‘previous’ timetable was based on the May 2020 timetable and the data that is built from. The Dec 2020 timetable and data is different, albeit mostly in ways that aren’t visible to the public. So although going to, say, a 6tph timetable might look the same, it is different, and needs a load of planning work to make it work. Not least with rosters.

 

[CW2]

It’s not that easy though. The ‘previous’ timetable was based on the May 2020 timetable and the data that is built from. The Dec 2020 timetable and data is different, albeit mostly in ways that aren’t visible to the public. So although going to, say, a 6tph timetable might look the same, it is different, and needs a load of planning work to make it work. Not least with rosters.

Indeed. I don't seek to minimise the scale of the task, but I suspect the easier option will be to try to cut-and-paste in principle, if not in practice.
What I'd rather see is an acknowledgement that this reduced timetable is likely to carry on for some time, so an immediate return to 3 tph Manchester and Birmingham is unlikely. Once that has been faced and accepted, the way is open for a more radical re-write. Again, that's no quick task, but it needs to be considered sooner or later.

 

[The Planner]

Dec 22 has always been suggested as the re-write, though I suspect that could well end up pushed back.

 

[Bald Rick]

Dec 22 has always been suggested as the re-write, though I suspect that could well end up pushed back.

Depends on the new trains arriving.

Indeed. I don't seek to minimise the scale of the task, but I suspect the easier option will be to try to cut-and-paste in principle, if not in practice.
What I'd rather see is an acknowledgement that this reduced timetable is likely to carry on for some time, so an immediate return to 3 tph Manchester and Birmingham is unlikely. Once that has been faced and accepted, the way is open for a more radical re-write. Again, that's no quick task, but it needs to be considered sooner or later.

Complete rewrites of a timetable take years. To put it in context, the May 22 ECML rewrite has been in development and planning for 3 years.

I wouldn’t want to think about a fuller rewrite of the WCML until it becomes clearer what future demand is going to look like.

 

[Peter0124]

If we are looking at a rewrite if 2tph to BHM/MAN becomes permanent, I suppose it could look something like this

xx:00 Manchester via Stoke
xx:05 Liverpool
xx:10 Chester
xx:15 Birmingham
xx:20 Glasgow
xx:30 Manchester via Crewe
xx:45 Birmingham (continues to Scotland)

Though having 5 of the 7 departures in the first 30 minutes might seem inconsistent

 

[Bald Rick]

If we are looking at a rewrite if 2tph to BHM/MAN becomes permanent, I suppose it could look something like this

xx:00 Manchester via Stoke
xx:05 Liverpool
xx:10 Chester
xx:15 Birmingham
xx:20 Glasgow
xx:30 Manchester via Crewe
xx:45 Birmingham (continues to Scotland)

That’s a poor use of capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed, just because it looks nice doesn't move away from the fact xx.00, xx.03, xx.07 etc. every hour is clock face. When you have a fast line headway of 3 minutes, not utilising that is basically poor planning unless something causes you to do otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, just because it looks nice doesn't move away from the fact xx.00, xx.03, xx.07 etc. every hour is clock face. When you have a fast line headway of 3 minutes, not utilising that is basically poor planning unless something causes you to do otherwise.

Yes and no. If there's a general reduction in service, you needn't use all the paths, you might as well space stuff out to make it more reliable (though perhaps keep it multiples of 3)? Would require LNR to change theirs too, though.

 

[CW2]

Perhaps the best use of the released capacity would be to make additional stops at Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, and principal Trent Valley stations, thereby moving away from the "Get there as fast as possible by running non-stop wherever possible" doctrine which has ruled since 2006.

 

[The Planner]

Yes and no. If there's a general reduction in service, you needn't use all the paths, you might as well space stuff out to make it more reliable (though perhaps keep it multiples of 3)? Would require LNR to change theirs too, though.

Remember that a planning headway is also above a technical one, and on the WCML, a fair chunk above too in places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the best use of the released capacity would be to make additional stops at Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, and principal Trent Valley stations, thereby moving away from the "Get there as fast as possible by running non-stop wherever possible" doctrine which has ruled since 2006.

It may be of note that, as I recall, the reason for the Glasgow not making a Crewe stop was usually quoted as being potential overcrowding. With that objection gone, perhaps adding the stop to improve connectivity would make sense, particularly if the "via Brum" service is going to terminate at Preston.

 

[tetudo boy]

Seeing as your trying to rewrite the Avanti timetable, could Avanti also do with an hourly London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street via Birmingham New Street service between the xx:23 Birmingham and xx:30 Glasgow services if possible?
*Get's out crayons and a sheet*
Something like this...
London Euston - Watford Junction (Would allow the other Liverpool service to stop at Rugby) - Coventry - Birmingham International - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Liverpool South Parkway (seeing as the other Liverpool service would most-likely stop at Runcorn, maybe this service could stop at LSP) - London Euston
This would also remove the combined LNWR services from London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street to both terminate at Birmingham New Street rather than going straight through to Liverpool or London, and provide a faster service to Liverpool. Let's be honest, LNWR's move on that service was a nightmare.
*Put's back crayons*

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Seeing as your trying to rewrite the Avanti timetable, could Avanti also do with an hourly London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street via Birmingham New Street service between the xx:23 Birmingham and xx:30 Glasgow services if possible?
*Get's out crayons and a sheet*
Something like this...
London Euston - Watford Junction (Would allow the other Liverpool service to stop at Rugby) - Coventry - Birmingham International - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Liverpool South Parkway (seeing as the other Liverpool service would most-likely stop at Runcorn, maybe this service could stop at LSP) - London Euston
This would also remove the combined LNWR services from London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street to both terminate at Birmingham New Street rather than going straight through to Liverpool or London, and provide a faster service to Liverpool. Let's be honest, LNWR's move on that service was a nightmare.
*Put's back crayons*

The combined LNWR services to Liverpool Lime Street have been removed from the timetable already.

 

[tetudo boy]

Seeing as your trying to rewrite the Avanti timetable, could Avanti also do with an hourly London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street via Birmingham New Street service between the xx:23 Birmingham and xx:30 Glasgow services if possible?
*Get's out crayons and a sheet*
Something like this...
London Euston - Watford Junction (Would allow the other Liverpool service to stop at Rugby) - Coventry - Birmingham International - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Liverpool South Parkway (seeing as the other Liverpool service would most-likely stop at Runcorn, maybe this service could stop at LSP) - London Euston
This would also remove the combined LNWR services from London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street to both terminate at Birmingham New Street rather than going straight through to Liverpool or London, and provide a faster service to Liverpool. Let's be honest, LNWR's move on that service was a nightmare.
*Put's back crayons*

And just for clarity, the Liverpool to Birmingham and London to Birmingham LNWR stopper services will remain, just not going direct to Liverpool and London.

The combined LNWR services to Liverpool Lime Street have been removed from the timetable already.

Maybe because of Covid, but post-covid may mean that the services will possibly be combined again, so the best move is to make an Avanti fast service rather than an LNWR stopper service, and split the LNWR service at Birmingham.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

And just for clarity, the Liverpool to Birmingham and London to Birmingham LNWR stopper services will remain, just not going direct to Liverpool and London.


Maybe because of Covid, but post-covid may mean that the services will possibly be combined again, so the best move is to make an Avanti fast service rather than an LNWR stopper service, and split the LNWR service at Birmingham.

But if you move the current Avanti Liverpool Lime Street service to run via Birmingham it no longer is a fast service and would completely decimate journey and travel times to Liverpool. Plus what's wrong with current Scotland via Birmingham Avanti trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe because of Covid, but post-covid may mean that the services will possibly be combined again, so the best move is to make an Avanti fast service rather than an LNWR stopper service, and split the LNWR service at Birmingham.

I doubt that service will ever be back, because it made an utter mess of the WCML. While if you're on a budget you won't necessarily mind a change to keep the price down (and make it quicker, if you use the Trent Valley LNR service), and with a 4+ hour journey a walk around at Brum was no bad thing anyway and a chance to grab a cup of tea.

It was fundamentally a really awful idea that had a very small number of advantages and a massive load of disadvantages, such as the daily near-collapse of the service. In its final guise it was to have sat at New St for about 20 minutes, which would make changing at Crewe instead even more attractive.

 

[The Planner]

Seeing as your trying to rewrite the Avanti timetable, could Avanti also do with an hourly London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street via Birmingham New Street service between the xx:23 Birmingham and xx:30 Glasgow services if possible?
*Get's out crayons and a sheet*
Something like this...
London Euston - Watford Junction (Would allow the other Liverpool service to stop at Rugby) - Coventry - Birmingham International - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Liverpool South Parkway (seeing as the other Liverpool service would most-likely stop at Runcorn, maybe this service could stop at LSP) - London Euston
This would also remove the combined LNWR services from London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street to both terminate at Birmingham New Street rather than going straight through to Liverpool or London, and provide a faster service to Liverpool. Let's be honest, LNWR's move on that service was a nightmare.
*Put's back crayons*

In a word, no. You would have to go at xx.26 and the Glasgow would catch you up whilst you were stopped at Watford. Not sure why you would try and have two Birminghams within 3 minutes either. Its pointless.

 

[tetudo boy]

I doubt that service will ever be back, because it made an utter mess of the WCML. While if you're on a budget you won't necessarily mind a change to keep the price down (and make it quicker, if you use the Trent Valley LNR service), and with a 4+ hour journey a walk around at Brum was no bad thing anyway and a chance to grab a cup of tea.

It was fundamentally a really awful idea that had a very small number of advantages and a massive load of disadvantages, such as the daily near-collapse of the service. In its final guise it was to have sat at New St for about 20 minutes, which would make changing at Crewe instead even more attractive.

I take that idea back, I wasn't aware about that problem, thanks for pointing it out!