Network Rail release yet another RUS

[northwichcat]

It's a revised RUS for the WCML, dated July 2011:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...westcoastmainlinerouteutilisationstrategy.pdf

The first few things I've noticed
* 6 carriage operation recommended for Manchester Airport-Scotland - although 4 car EMU order proposed. hock:
* Manchester-London to go 4tph if a path becomes available. (I'm not sure where a path would magically appear from!)
* Derby to Crewe to become 2 car DMU
* LM proposed West Coast revisions north of Stafford need to be looked at in more detail but aren't proposed to go ahead at the moment.
* They point out that a lot of responders to the draft RUS have called for Crewe-Chester and Windermere-Oxenholme electrification, the Pendolinos have too much FC accommodation and that high peak ticket prices on London services attracted evening overcrowding especially on Fridays.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was mentioned last week and was the basis for a long discussion in the proposed WCML services thread and the Manchester-Scotland EMU stock thread.

 

[northwichcat]

Was mentioned last week and was the basis for a long discussion in the proposed WCML services thread

Do you mean this one?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47984

I can't find a mention of the new RUS there.

The Manchester-Scotland one has come up with a 110mph mention but it doesn't seem to state the source.

 

[NXEA!]

It's a revised RUS for the WCML, dated July 2011:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...westcoastmainlinerouteutilisationstrategy.pdf

The first few things I've noticed
* 6 carriage operation recommended for Manchester Airport-Scotland - although 4 car EMU order proposed. hock:
* Manchester-London to go 4tph if a path becomes available. (I'm not sure where a path would magically appear from!)
* Derby to Crewe to become 2 car DMU
* LM proposed West Coast revisions north of Stafford need to be looked at in more detail but aren't proposed to go ahead at the moment.
* They point out that a lot of responders to the draft RUS have called for Crewe-Chester and Windermere-Oxenholme electrification, the Pendolinos have too much FC accommodation and that high peak ticket prices on London services attracted evening overcrowding especially on Fridays.

A fourth path for Manchester? Please tell me this is their idea of a joke. There is no way, Manchester justifys a fourth service an hour, the other three an hour are relatively lightly loaded anyway! I'd rather see that extra path used on a second Liverpool service an hour or a new service serving a new destination, not Stoke, Stockport and Manchester which are already well served.

 

[Hydro]

Derby to Crewe to become 2 car DMU

Woohoo!

 

[northwichcat]

A fourth path for Manchester? Please tell me this is their idea of a joke. There is no way, Manchester justifys a fourth service an hour, the other three an hour are relatively lightly loaded anyway! I'd rather see that extra path used on a second Liverpool service an hour or a new service serving a new destination, not Stoke, Stockport and Manchester which are already well served.

I've just looked through some of the responses submitted and haven't found one that supports it. Cheshire East Council, Northern Rail, TAR North West, Travel Watch North West, Merseytravel and Arriva CrossCountry have all opposed the move. GMPTE/TfGM, Manchester City Council and Stockport Borough Council did not submit responses so can't feel strongly about it.

Freightliner have also mentioned concerns with routing in the Manchester area.

Railfuture have suggested that maybe as part of the Manchester Hub an additional Euston-Manchester service would work if it then went express to Liverpool.

Incidentally, TPE's response supports a model for higher fare increases.

 

[rail-britain]

It's a revised RUS for the WCML, dated July 2011:
* Derby to Crewe to become 2 car DMU
* Manchester-London to go 4tph if a path becomes available. (I'm not sure where a path would magically appear from!)
* LM proposed West Coast revisions north of Stafford need to be looked at in more detail but aren't proposed to go ahead at the moment

Quite common with the others, more status quo and/or confirming what is proposed thus far
The EMU operation for Manchester - Scotland allows DfT to then negotiate and specify rolling stock for the current or next franchise
Network Rail are prepared to upgrade the infrastructure for 6 car trains, but they assume DfT only want 4 car trains
Quite similar to Class 390 introduction, Network Rail were prepared for 11 car trains, but this was not required initially

I've reorganised what you have listed so that it makes it clearer what Network Rail are intimating at

The first that I find unusual is Derby - Crewe as this is already 2 car DMU (or it has been every time I have seen it)

If Manchester - London increases to 4 tph, then it is likely to either be 3 via Stoke and 1 via Stafford, or 2 via Stoke and 2 via Stafford
Read with the LM proposal it looks more likely the latter (one via Crewe and one via Stone)

 

[WatcherZero]

A fourth path for Manchester? Please tell me this is their idea of a joke. There is no way, Manchester justifys a fourth service an hour, the other three an hour are relatively lightly loaded anyway! I'd rather see that extra path used on a second Liverpool service an hour or a new service serving a new destination, not Stoke, Stockport and Manchester which are already well served.

Economics justify it with the figures saying it would be profitable but the final edition RUS says they will shelve the idea until at least 2013 due to local opposition on the grounds of disruption to local services (GMPTE/Manchester/Stockport opposed the fourth hourly service too). It does suggest elsewhere that the path could be created by rerouting one of the slower Birmingham-Manchester stopper services to other lines (via Crewe).

Do you mean this one?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47984

I can't find a mention of the new RUS there.

The Manchester-Scotland one has come up with a 110mph mention but it doesn't seem to state the source.

The 4/6/8 set length discussion and the 110mph running is partly based on this RUS suggestions yes, it also partly corraborates a suggestion from other sources that the stock would be a new order of 350's subleased as an interim solution by the end of the decade being replaced by a new order of 6-8 car sets.

 

[northwichcat]

If Manchester - London increases to 4 tph, then it is likely to either be 3 via Stoke and 1 via Stafford, or 2 via Stoke and 2 via Stafford

It says:
The stopping pattern of this additional service has been assumed to be London Euston – Stockport – Manchester Piccadilly to offer the best possible journey time.

Therefore, which ever way it can get between Stockport and London the quickest would be seen as the best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Economics justify it with the figures saying it would be profitable but the final edition RUS says they will shelve the idea until at least 2013 due to local opposition on the grounds of disruption to local services (GMPTE/Manchester/Stockport opposed the fourth hourly service too).

No changes to timetabling or paths are proposed to be implemented before Dec 2013 anyway. Extra carriages may be introduced sooner, if available.

It does suggest elsewhere that the path could be created by rerouting one of the slower Birmingham-Manchester stopper services to other lines (via Crewe).

It does suggest sending the Bournemouth-Birmingham-Manchester service via Crewe. However, does not say it will definitely happen. However, this was suggested alongside running a Manchester-Macclesfield-Stoke-Stone-Birmingham service which would take up that path and provide the link lost between Stoke and Birmingham.

To run an additional London service a path is also required over the congested Stockport viaduct and on the congested approach to Piccadilly station, which will not be freed up by diverting the Bournemouth service.

 

[Hydro]

The first that I find unusual is Derby - Crewe as this is already 2 car DMU (or it has been every time I have seen it)

It's normally a 153, doubled up occasionally (peak times I believe) but most of the time that I've used it it's been a single unit. It's horrendously well patronised and could very well benefit from being two coaches as standard.

 

[Zoe]

A fourth path for Manchester? Please tell me this is their idea of a joke. There is no way, Manchester justifys a fourth service an hour, the other three an hour are relatively lightly loaded anyway! I'd rather see that extra path used on a second Liverpool service an hour or a new service serving a new destination, not Stoke, Stockport and Manchester which are already well served.

That may well be the case now but if it gets to a time when car and air are no longer alternatives (due to climate change and peak oil) then the paths most likely will be needed. Better to plan for them now.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That may well be the case now but if it gets to a time when car and air are no longer alternatives (due to climate change and peak oil) then the paths most likely will be needed. Better to plan for them now.

Very true.
But.... I think along them lines there are much more urgent requirements for that path than a 4th to manchester. The path could be used for something that is needed now let alone when rail becomes a major form of transport again.
So yes very true but things that need capcity now will be in crisis when peak oil comes along if we dont act.

(although most of the network will collapse if this does happen....)

 

[cle]

Could the 4th Manchester service go via Styal, to avoid getting a Stockport path? It could call at Wilmslow instead - or even go non-stop for the best journey time.

 

[Lampshade]

Could the 4th Manchester service go via Styal, to avoid getting a Stockport path? It could call at Wilmslow instead - or even go non-stop for the best journey time.

Well the whole idea of this line was for expresses to bypass Stockport, it's a possibility.

 

[northwichcat]

Could the 4th Manchester service go via Styal, to avoid getting a Stockport path? It could call at Wilmslow instead - or even go non-stop for the best journey time.

Just though of something too logical for DfT's thinking.

The 4th service could be run using the Voyagers proposed to be used on the Blackpool services (which could have a pantograph vehicle fitted.) They then run a service with a calling pattern of Euston, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Salford Crescent, Bolton, Preston, Blackpool North.

That'd give one city and two large towns a new London link, be able to take over the TPE path between Manchester Airport and Salford Crescent. It should be able to give a slightly under 2 hour journey time for Manchester-London and around 3 hours for Blackpool-London.

It would, however, leave a gap at Chorley and Kirkham & Wesham. The Blackpool-York service could make an additional call at Kirkham & Wesham (if needed.) Maybe Chorley would survive with having 3tph in each direction instead of 4?

 

[WatcherZero]

You could shave 30 minutes off Blackpool-London if you just changed in Preston though. And thats including the 10 min wait in Preston for the connection.

 

[YorkshireBear]

When HS2 gets to manchester (please dont let the nimbys get there way by the time its built we'll need it a bit and 20 years later we will really need it) The West coast is going to be a very interesting place, places without london services for year or poor ones are going to get great ones again because of it. Places like bolton and blackburn are going to have to wait until then IMHO. Just isnt the spare capcity...

 

[tbtc]

Is a fourth Manchester service (with no increase in Liverpool services) what Virgin want (or what the Government are suggesting)?

 

[WatcherZero]

Its what the central government and rail companies want but the local councils and people dont want it/think it unnecesary.
Liverpool wants a service but the rail companies dont want to give one as theyve done the numbers and it apparantly would be less profitable than just lengthening the existing service.

 

[cslusarc]

The 4th service could be run using the Voyagers proposed to be used on the Blackpool services (which could have a pantograph vehicle fitted.) They then run a service with a calling pattern of Euston, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Salford Crescent, Bolton, Preston, Blackpool North.

If you'd use Voyagers, you'd have to pair them up and run them with 10 or 12 car trains assuming Operation Thor is authorized and one car is added to each 4/5-car unit. Also if you ran a pair of Voyagers, they could be split at an intermediate calling point and sent to two different destinations.

You could shave 30 minutes off Blackpool-London if you just changed in Preston though. And thats including the 10 min wait in Preston for the connection.

As an alternative you could run one coupled pair of Voyagers in one path to Crewe where they's split and you'd have one unit go to Chester (or beyond) and the other perhaps to Blackpool.

 

[northwichcat]

If you'd use Voyagers, you'd have to pair them up and run them with 10 or 12 car trains assuming Operation Thor is authorized and one car is added to each 4/5-car unit. Also if you ran a pair of Voyagers, they could be split at an intermediate calling point and sent to two different destinations.

It would work with a single Voyager if there weren't too many Advance tickets for that service. Most existing Manchester-London services only really have Advance ticket passengers and Virgin only ticket holders for Crewe/Macclesfield/Wilmslow/Stockport to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could shave 30 minutes off Blackpool-London if you just changed in Preston though. And thats including the 10 min wait in Preston for the connection.

?

The Blackpool North- Victoria service departs Blackpool at xx:20 and arrives at Preston at xx:47. The London service departs Preston at xx:58 and arrives in London 2hr14 minutes later.

Manchester-London via the Styal line doing one intermediate call should be around 2hours. Airport-Blackpool would be much faster than TPE due to 125mph running and less calls so I'd estimated around 1 hour extra.

So it would really be a case of similar timings BUT if you opt to change at Preston you risk missing your connection and arriving 45 minutes later with an additional change at Crewe.

 

[cle]

In the RUS, they don't seem to focus (or care) too much on non-long distance or Milton Keynes solutions.

For example, Queens Park is shown as one of the busiest journeys from Euston, with 690k - more than Glasgow, Preston, Stockport, Harrow & W, Rugby, Bushey etc.... but they don't even look at this as a gap (or suppressed demand) and analyse stopping some services on the semi-fast Slow lines, which have platforms and PIDs ready to go. They're not 12 car though.

And not only is it a busy place, more importantly it could also serve as a point for people to change onto the Bakerloo line from LM services, as at Stratford, Finsbury Park, Vauxhall etc...

The Bakerloo has capacity and many trains originate there so can handle it and people might get seats! It's an easy change too - journeys to Paddington (and Heathrow), Marylebone, Baker Street (and Canary Wharf due to cross platform there), Piccadilly Circus would be quicker.

And ones to Oxford Circus, Charing Cross, Embankment and Waterloo would be about the same as from Euston - but less hassle and would relieve the tube there.

I know pathing would be difficult, but not if a lot of services stopped there and it was accepted as worthwhile. Especially if they want to can the DC services eventually. Why isn't this journey option promoted more? No brainer to me, just needs a new timetable.

Also the RUS didn't mention the Bedford - Bletchley trains running to Milton Keynes Central, which has been spoken about for years and the platform is ready.

 

[WatcherZero]

It would work with a single Voyager if there weren't too many Advance tickets for that service. Most existing Manchester-London services only really have Advance ticket passengers and Virgin only ticket holders for Crewe/Macclesfield/Wilmslow/Stockport to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


?

The Blackpool North- Victoria service departs Blackpool at xx:20 and arrives at Preston at xx:47. The London service departs Preston at xx:58 and arrives in London 2hr14 minutes later.

Youve not considered how long for your alternative to go via Bolton even if theres minimal stops it will still have to shadow behind the semi-expresses, an hour and 10 to Piccadilly at best speed. Add to Piccadilly-Euston timings thats 3 and a half hours versus 2 hours 50 with a change.

 

[northwichcat]

Youve not considered how long for your alternative to go via Bolton even if theres minimal stops it will still have to shadow behind the semi-expresses, an hour and 10 to Piccadilly at best speed. Add to Piccadilly-Euston timings thats 3 and a half hours versus 2 hours 50 with a change.

I have considered that.

Based on the current timetable if the London-Blackpool was in the path of the Airport-Blackpool service, it would catch up the Victoria-Blackpool service at Preston, be allowed to depart Preston before the Northern service (just like the EMT Norwich-Liverpool and TPE Scarborough-Liverpool services at Manchester Oxford Rd), it would then do Preston-Blackpool faster than the Northern service so arrive at around xx:45 (around one hour after leaving Piccadilly.)

Southbound would be a bit more tricky based on the current timetable but if Blackpool was to get London service it would mean a complete timetable recast anyway so as it's possible to fit in northbound without a recast it would be southbound with a recast.

I don't know how you get 2.5 hours for Piccadilly-Euston. I'm assuming you're thinking of congestion on the WCML slowing down services, in which case would affect Blackpool-Wigan-London just as much. The 07:00 Piccadilly-London does it in 1hr58 with one intermediate call and that still includes the token recovery time to reduce the risk of it arriving at London Euston late.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes its quite easy to draw and imaginable timetable and say these timings are possible, look at this crack of dawn or late at night service when theres no other traffic operating! Doesnt work like that during the day im afraid.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's a revised RUS for the WCML, dated July 2011:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...westcoastmainlinerouteutilisationstrategy.pdf


* They point out that a lot of responders to the draft RUS have called for Crewe-Chester and Windermere-Oxenholme electrification.

Those two projects were bound to have elicited a very strong response from the public consultation measures..... and threads in this forum have also reflected the same amount of discussion on both of these two matters.