New London Midland timetable

[IanD]

Birmingham also gets extremely frequent Pendolinos, 168s and MkIII coaches to London. While they are not operated by LM, pretending they dont exist isnt really fair either. You have plenty of options if you want to travel between the capital and the second city, on route, price, journey time and comfort of seat. Significantly more options than anywhere else actually, so try not to sound to hard done by.

Not everyone wants to go to London

 

[tbtc]

I don't think that's offering Northampton's rail users anything of any real value, do you?

...

Really poor when compared to other destinations of a similar size and distance from London e.g. Colchester, Cambridge, Peterboro, Reading....

Northampton has never really had a great service for the size of the town, but that's what you get for being on a loop line with an abysmal line speed. Do other towns such as Worcester and Weston Super Mare suffer from the same problems being situated on a loop line?

Yes. Cross Country by pass both (Weston gets a few XC services) as they are on loops, when chances are they'd call if they were on the mainline.

One could say the same about Bradford (W Yorks) - a city on the slow Manchester line rather than the premium line via Huddersfield.

Northampton does pretty well considering the (twenty minute?) time penalty for serving it (compared to running direct between Milton Keynes and Rugby).

There are a few other places that see a poorer service due to not being on the main line - for example Cross Country services pass both Gloucester and Rotherham without stopping because the line alignment isn't suitable (too much time penalty to stop there).

Can't blame the current TOCs for infrastructure issues that go back over a hundred years.

<snip>

I hope that helps clarify some of the elements of the new timetable. There should be more background available online as we approach the timetable change.

David

Although I do not live in a part of the country covered by LM, I find having official comments from them very interesting & informative.
It would good to see other TOC’s following their example.

Agreed - am impressed with LM's communication

 

[MK Tom]

I must give London Midland massive kudos for being on the forum and taking the time to answer our points. That's absolutely awesome.

I support project 110 largely because it brings enormous benefits to Milton Keynes but I am aware of Northampton losing out on through connections and as I said previously the thing that really needs to happen before Northampton's connections to the north and attractiveness as a destination can improve is an upgrade of the loop's line speed to 100mph or 110mph. The current 75mph makes taking that route a massive inconvenience for anyone on a through journey.

Slightly off-topic but my only negative comment on LM is the frequent cancellations on Marston Vale services. The way that line is run needs to be completely re-appraised. I might start a thread about that actually. But as regards the WCML they do an excellent job, considering the amount of infrastructure issues they regularly have to contend with, and project 110 is excellent news for Milton Keynes and the Trent Valley (remember many passengers simply can't afford to change onto VT services at Rugby or Stafford).

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Not everyone wants to go to London

But the complaint was that Birmingham was being lumped with the 350/2's between New Street & London so I fail to see your point. Even the busier intermediate stations are well served by more comfortable traction.

 

[IanD]

But the complaint was that Birmingham was being lumped with the 350/2's between New Street & London so I fail to see your point. Even the busier intermediate stations are well served by more comfortable traction.

I didn't notice any destination being mention, just that services to/from Birmingham were lumped (lumbered?) with 350/2s. Could have been referring to journeys to Long Buckby, Northampton, Wolverton, Bletchley and/or Leighton Buzzard.

 

[Eagle]

Even the busier intermediate stations are well served by more comfortable traction.

But the busiest intermediate station is Coventry.

 

[SS4]

I must give London Midland massive kudos for being on the forum and taking the time to answer our points. That's absolutely awesome.

I will second that, more-so since their last post in this thread was made at 2:07am.

I'm indifferent on project 110 since (as I understand it anyway) Birmingham to London is largely unchanged.
For ticketing it'd be nice to have Break of Journey allowed on the outward portion of the SVR (at least), especially considering the LM have the same fare from any Network West Midlands station to London.

OT: Nice one for freezing the Great Escape fares

 

[bILLOO]

The aim of the project 110 timetable is to speed up journey times and increase capacity on the WCML south of Milton Keynes where we have major crowding at peak times but no more 100mph paths. It's an innovative scheme that enables us to run a xx46 and xx49 from Euston, which in due course has the potential to increase capacity on fast services to Milton Keynes by up to 800 seats per hour. As majority of Trent Valley traffic is to London and journey time is already very long, it therefore makes sense for the Crewe trains to avoid going via Rugby. However, the increased capacity by running at 110mph means that Northampton retains its 3 trains per hour with some speed improvements.

Is the close running of these services the reason why the Crewe train will also now non-stop through Watford? I suppose Watford won't suffer from a decrease in services; it'll just also lose its' Trent Valley trains.

We have 30 class 350/1s, so even if all Liverpool-Birmingham and all Crewe-London services are in their hands, that still leaves a significant number for other services and we will obviously try to focus these on the longer distance trains where possible.

Hopefully Northampton will still receive a decent number of these then. Will the 350/3's ever be allocated to the loop?

One of the other benefits of the scheme is that it becomes faster to change at Rugby when heading to London from Birmingham on certain departures, and that will free up capacity on the Birmingham-London service travelling via Northampton. Rugby-London will also have a cheaper direct route to London without the need to go via Northampton, again freeing up capacity for Northampton.

This is a good point which I've failed to realise. It's nice to see Rugby getting a little extra since VT look away most of it's calls from there.

It seems a little unfair to suggest that LM has shown a lack of interest in Northampton. We've increased the frequency between Birmingham and Northampton from 1 train per hour to 3 trains per hour since we took over in 2007, introduced Advance fares and replaced the 321s with brand new trains. Whether you like the 3+2 configuration or not, which of course is as per the 321s they replaced, passenger feedback consistently rates them far higher than 321s and only marginally lower than 350/1s. In an ideal world, we would have liked to have been able to specify the 2+2 layout for the whole fleet, but that simply didn't meet the DfT's specification on capacity. We haven't had that constraint with the 350/3s which is why they will have 2+2 (thus increasing the proportion of such units in the fleet).

Yes, pity about the 350/2's, but there are definitely worse trains... I just wish we had at least tables and arm rests like those on the 350/1's.

Wellingborough is lucky in that it has an HST service to London, but passengers also pay dearly for it. It costs £37 more than travelling from Northampton in the peak and £34 more in the off-peak.

Yes, there is a biggg price difference. I commute from both and use LM more often due to the price, however would the higher-earners transfer to Wellingborough if they lose their beloved 350/1's to Euston?

Finally, in terms of capacity, there will be fewer 8 car trains during the day from Northampton to London, but this should be offset, in the main, by capacity being freed up by the new Weedon services. However, as one of the fastest growing TOCs in the UK, we are constantly reviewing passenger loadings and will target extra resources where there are needed. 8 car trains on the Trent Valley and the possibility of splitting at Rugby are also being looked into.

Let's hope so!

And also, thank you for taking the time to explain everything re-routing via Weedon. It does explain a great deal.

 

[Deerfold]

OT: Nice one for freezing the Great Escape fares

Well they did go up from #10 to #15 last time...

 

[SS4]

Well they did go up from #10 to #15 last time...

Unless you're a railcard holder when they went down from £10 to £9.90

 

[oversteer]

I hope this change doesn't mean the Tring stoppers are less likely to get 350/1s especially in the evenings

 

[Qwerty133]

I hope this change doesn't mean the Tring stoppers are less likely to get 350/1s especially in the evenings

The Tring stoppers are less likely to be 350/1s, however I have actually seen people complain on twitter when these services are /1s as the seating capacity is reduced.
Do you honestly think /1s should be used on the only line passengers prefer /2s?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The Tring stoppers are less likely to be 350/1s, however I have actually seen people complain on twitter when these services are /1s as the seating capacity is reduced.
Do you honestly think /1s should be used on the only line passengers prefer /2s?

How can you be sure it is the 'only line'? Only a minority of passengers will be commenting on Twitter about it, for all we know the other 98% of regular passengers may prefer /1s! Also, how do you know that, for example, those on the evening peak /1s out of Birmingham towards Coventry wouldn't prefer /2s too?

 

[Qwerty133]

How can you be sure it is the 'only line'? Only a minority of passengers will be commenting on Twitter about it, for all we know the other 98% of regular passengers may prefer /1s! Also, how do you know that, for example, those on the evening peak /1s out of Birmingham towards Coventry wouldn't prefer /2s too?

You cannot be sure however you would expect that it would show the general views of passengers, Just like passenger surveys do not ask everyone. And opinion polls do not ask everyone.

 

[oversteer]

You cannot be sure however you would expect that it would show the general views of passengers, Just like passenger surveys do not ask everyone. And opinion polls do not ask everyone.

To be honest the evening peak Tring stoppers empty out past Watford and all the LM services on the fast lines seem to be full of people standing as they leave London, so it would make more sense for all of them to be 350/1 and LM to upgrade the 350/2 to 110mph running

 

[A0wen]

It seems a little unfair to suggest that LM has shown a lack of interest in Northampton. We've increased the frequency between Birmingham and Northampton from 1 train per hour to 3 trains per hour since we took over in 2007,

You're being quite disingenuous here. Northampton - Birmingham only had 1 tph as a temporary measure whilst the WCML modernisation took place. I can't recall if Silverlink ran 2 or 3 tph to Birmingham, but what I can recall is their services were quicker than you're offering as their only stops were Rugby, Coventry, B'ham Intl and New Street - yet all of your services stop at various points between Coventry and New Street.

Equally, you're actually reducing the number of northbound departures from Northampton by 25% over a 'normal' hour.

So please don't pretend you've somehow massively improved the service and destination offering from Northampton - with the exception of the TV services it's highly debatable whether Northampton has benefited.

introduced Advance fares and replaced the 321s with brand new trains. Whether you like the 3+2 configuration or not, which of course is as per the 321s they replaced, passenger feedback consistently rates them far higher than 321s and only marginally lower than 350/1s. In an ideal world, we would have liked to have been able to specify the 2+2 layout for the whole fleet, but that simply didn't meet the DfT's specification on capacity. We haven't had that constraint with the 350/3s which is why they will have 2+2 (thus increasing the proportion of such units in the fleet).

Again, you're being disingenuous - the first 350s were delivered to Silverlink / Central jointly - you may have supplemented them, but they weren't your idea.

I'd be very worried if passenger surveys rated the 350s as worse than the 321s - if satisfaction was anything other than much improved then the investment in new stock would be open to question.

Fact still remains though that for a journey of the distance / time from London to Northampton that having a majority of 3+2 seated trains is not really acceptable - and doesn't happen on other, comparable lines (at worst, there's usually a mix of 2+2 and 3+2)

Wellingborough is lucky in that it has an HST service to London, but passengers also pay dearly for it. It costs £37 more than travelling from Northampton in the peak and £34 more in the off-peak.

Whilst the comment about the fares is true - a simple 'ticket split' at Bedford narrows that gap quite significantly - since virtually all Wellingborough services call at Bedford it doesn't cause a problem. And their 'normal' journey time is circa 50 mins whereas the majority of LM services from Northampton are over an hour. So it's not the simple comparison you're making out.

The idea that we have deliberately broken connections from Northampton at Rugby seems a little strange. The timetable has been through a number of iterations, however, and it is just possible that this has slipped in. We'll see what we can do to resolve that as it serves no purpose from a customer viewpoint.

Whether it's deliberate or not, fact is that it currently is set like that, which significantly extends journey times from Northampton to destinations on the TV services.

And even if the time was adjusted, will London Midland guarantee connections at Rugby for Northampton passengers?

Finally, in terms of capacity, there will be fewer 8 car trains during the day from Northampton to London, but this should be offset, in the main, by capacity being freed up by the new Weedon services. However, as one of the fastest growing TOCs in the UK, we are constantly reviewing passenger loadings and will target extra resources where there are needed. 8 car trains on the Trent Valley and the possibility of splitting at Rugby are also being looked into.

So not only does Northampton lose the majority of direct TV services it also loses capacity during the day to London... I'm not sure it is unfair to claim LM is showing a lack of interest in Northampton.

 

[IrishDave]

That's correct - the 20/20/20 pattern isn't possible to protect a strategic freight path. As a result our train sits at Coventry for some time (although conveniently connects into a VT into Birmingham).

Thanks for the confirmation. However, technically it doesn't connect, because it's a 4-minute connection: LM arr xx58, VT dep xx02 (though it's xx03H in the WTT). In any case, I wouldn't like to be running across the footbridge from platform 4 to 3, only to have to run back again if I happened to miss it...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We have 30 class 350/1s, so even if all Liverpool-Birmingham and all Crewe-London services are in their hands, that still leaves a significant number for other services and we will obviously try to focus these on the longer distance trains where possible.

Won't the xx49 departures to Birmingham (and the corresponding arrival) need to be 350/1s as well, so as to run at 110 mph?

 

[jaigee]

I notice all discussion on the deterioration of the northbound connections for the TV stations has virtually ceased, focus once again appears to centre on the applauding of most things South.

Most services via Stafford are now extended by over 20 minutes with a longer wait, at least Pumpkin should do well.

Also, I can't wait to see the faces on the considerable number of passengers alighting from the XC **:10 services at Nuneaton when they realise they now have a 45 minute wait for the next LM service northwards.

I would imagine anyone travelling to Stafford or beyond from the XC services will now continue on to Birmingham for the quicker connection there, further increasing the "crush" at New Street.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

You're being quite disingenuous here. Northampton - Birmingham only had 1 tph as a temporary measure whilst the WCML modernisation took place. I can't recall if Silverlink ran 2 or 3 tph to Birmingham, but what I can recall is their services were quicker than you're offering as their only stops were Rugby, Coventry, B'ham Intl and New Street - yet all of your services stop at various points between Coventry and New Street.

The 1997 Silverlink franchise had a requirement to run 2 tph to Birmingham New St - which was done incrementally - with some terminating at International to begin with - off peak. The 2004 TT was forced into some skip stopping as it was not possible to continue with the all stations Wolverhampton to Coventry ........

 

[bILLOO]

You're being quite disingenuous here. Northampton - Birmingham only had 1 tph as a temporary measure whilst the WCML modernisation took place. I can't recall if Silverlink ran 2 or 3 tph to Birmingham, but what I can recall is their services were quicker than you're offering as their only stops were Rugby, Coventry, B'ham Intl and New Street - yet all of your services stop at various points between Coventry and New Street.

Equally, you're actually reducing the number of northbound departures from Northampton by 25% over a 'normal' hour.

So please don't pretend you've somehow massively improved the service and destination offering from Northampton - with the exception of the TV services it's highly debatable whether Northampton has benefited.

There was also a time when Northampton had an hourly Milton Keynes - Euston only express which must have taken under the hour?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There was also a time when Northampton had an hourly Milton Keynes - Euston only express which must have taken under the hour?

Off peak only - Monday to Friday ....

 

[Philip Elliott]

The biggest adavantage of the new times that I am looking forward to is the much faster service from Rugby & the TV to Milton Keynes. At the moment it is no slower to do MK - Coventry - Nuneaton than go direct.

The ideal situation to iron out the flaws would be use additional units to cover the old path to create a 2tph service up the Trent Valley with the old path going via Stoke and use the new to via Madeley and direct to Liverpool - a slight increase in speed would the unit to couple to a BHM-LIV service at Stafford.

 

[London_Midland]

Thanks for the various additional comments.

- Following feedback, we're hoping to reintroduce the Northampton-Milton Keynes 'double-back' routeing and amend the times slightly to ensure a 5 minute 'connection' at Rugby for northbound services.

- With regard to the Coventry 'connection' into Birmingham on our NMP-BHM service, it is virtually guaranteed on the basis that the train it connects with comes from Euston so is always behind from Rugby, even though only 4 mins back.

- London Midland introduced the 350/2s to replace the 321s, just to clarify, from December 2008. Had we specified them, we'd probably have equipped them with seat back tables.

- We'd love to run trains purely with 2+2 seating, and also to ensure 3+2 seating is only used on the shortest distance services. However, our busiest trains to Northampton already have the equivalent of 16 coaches-worth of passengers and we receive complaints if 2+2 config trains are used. The nature of the very inflexible WCML timetable also makes it quite inefficient NOT to interwork trains at present between long and short distance. Within the constraints of our franchise, the capacity specification from the DfT, and the limited space on the WCML, we've tried hard to be as innovative as possible to improve the service for everyone.

- One of our biggest frustrations is the stopping pattern between Coventry and Birmingham. However, thanks to VT's VHF timetable we can no longer run any train between Coventry and Birmingham all stations without it being caught up. As a result, all trains need to stop at a variety of stations. All our off-peak Coventry trains are now to/from Northampton - that's more than ever before - and therefore have to be stoppers.

- The xx46 and xx49 are so close together as they fill the same path (and hence the removal of the WFJ stop). Both are generally going to be /1 or /3 trains. With the introduction of the /3s, Northampton will get even more 2+2 config trains.

- The broken connections at Nuneaton and Stafford are unfortunate. The pathing isn't great between Rugby and Stafford due - again - to the VHF timetable. 110mph helps but not enough to squeeze us into Stafford 5 mins earlier (and thus misses the Liverpool train).

- One of the fundamental reason that Project 110 came to fruition was to increase capacity in the medium term, particularly on MK and Northampton trains, to prevent so many people from standing considerable lengths of time. During the off-peak, Northampton doesn't need longer trains, however, except at key times (which we'll continue to address).

Anyway, as with all timetable changes, the focus is on improving things for the majority, which we believe this achieves. The fact that any timetable changes have been possible is a feat in itself given the scale of congestion on the line.

All the best,

David.

p.s. Don't forget Great Escape 20/10-4/11... £15 adults, £9.90 Railcards (incl. Network Railcard)

 

[cle]

Are there plans to increase line speeds on the slow lines up to 110, to improve overall journey times for those south of MK, albeit not on such a big scale? How about the Northampton loop?

I appreciate these are NR issues, but surely you guys would lobby for them?

A 5 min reduction on a journey is still 200 mins a month less spent on a train.

 

[calc7]

Are there plans to increase line speeds on the slow lines up to 110, to improve overall journey times for those south of MK, albeit not on such a big scale? How about the Northampton loop?

I appreciate these are NR issues, but surely you guys would lobby for them?

A 5 min reduction on a journey is still 200 mins a month less spent on a train.

Unlikely to get more than a minute I'd say - the LBZ-EUS non-stops would just catch up with the stoppers in front, e.g. Tring shuttles and the Cheddington Chugger.

 

[oversteer]

Just want to say thanks to David for coming on here and giving his time to inform us of LM's perspective on things, as well as being part of the Twitter team (assuming it's the same David!)

That said, more 350/1s on Tring stoppers please.

 

[cle]

Unlikely to get more than a minute I'd say - the LBZ-EUS non-stops would just catch up with the stoppers in front, e.g. Tring shuttles and the Cheddington Chugger.

Wouldn't it need more of a skip-stopping pattern to even things out and improve journey times across the board...

How many local journeys along the line, which don't include Watford Junction or Hemel?

 

[All Line Rover]

London Midland's new December timetable appears to ruin northbound journeys from Northampton. For example, Northampton to Manchester is currently around 2h14m (changing at Stoke on Trent) but from December becomes 2h43m (with a change at Birmingham).

There is currently a negative easement prohibiting northbound journeys from Northampton going via Milton Keynes. I believe this was introduced when the Trent Valley service from Northampton was improved a few years ago - I'm not 100% sure on this but the fact that route:Long Buckby and Any Permitted tickets are available suggests that journeys via MKC were valid at some point.

Now that thenorthbound service from Northampton effectively going backwards does anyone know if the easement will be changed to allow journeys via Milton Keynes.

Yes, this does appear to be the case, so your journey will actually be sped up from December, taking approximately 2 hours. Providing, of course, you buy the 'Any Permitted' ticket and not the 'via Long Buckby' ticket (which means you will be paying more, as the 'Any Permitted' ticket is more expensive - but you can blame Virgin for that).

 

[A0wen]

Yes, this does appear to be the case, so your journey will actually be sped up from December, taking approximately 2 hours. Providing, of course, you buy the 'Any Permitted' ticket and not the 'via Long Buckby' ticket (which means you will be paying more, as the 'Any Permitted' ticket is more expensive - but you can blame Virgin for that).

I think you're being unfair on Virgin here - I suspect there was always a premium to travel down to MK from Northampton to then travel north - even in BR days.

This could very easily be accommodated by LM issuing London Midland only fares from Northampton to TV stations / Stafford / Stoke / Crewe, rather than a via Long Buckby fares. That way it avoids any possible contention with Virgin.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for the various additional comments.

- Following feedback, we're hoping to reintroduce the Northampton-Milton Keynes 'double-back' routeing and amend the times slightly to ensure a 5 minute 'connection' at Rugby for northbound services.

Small consolation really compared to the loss of service. Incidentally are you going to ensure southbound connections are smoothed wherever possible as well?

- With regard to the Coventry 'connection' into Birmingham on our NMP-BHM service, it is virtually guaranteed on the basis that the train it connects with comes from Euston so is always behind from Rugby, even though only 4 mins back.

Unless you've been delayed and it's got ahead of your train before Rugby - how will a passenger know if that's the case?

- London Midland introduced the 350/2s to replace the 321s, just to clarify, from December 2008. Had we specified them, we'd probably have equipped them with seat back tables.

Nothing to stop you retrofitting these is there? But seat back tables only work with the 'airline' style seats - so what about those which are in 'bays'?

- We'd love to run trains purely with 2+2 seating, and also to ensure 3+2 seating is only used on the shortest distance services. However, our busiest trains to Northampton already have the equivalent of 16 coaches-worth of passengers and we receive complaints if 2+2 config trains are used.

Perhaps an aspiration should be for Northampton to have a 4 tph service in the peaks, rather than 3?

The nature of the very inflexible WCML timetable also makes it quite inefficient NOT to interwork trains at present between long and short distance. Within the constraints of our franchise, the capacity specification from the DfT, and the limited space on the WCML, we've tried hard to be as innovative as possible to improve the service for everyone.

Oh come off it - the WCML from London to Rugby has nothing like the capacity constraints of say the ECML where you have approximately 4 miles of double track and an 'on the level' crossing at Hitchin, yet Peterborough and Cambridge both seem to enjoy better journey times and a better mix of rolling stock than Northampton does.

- One of our biggest frustrations is the stopping pattern between Coventry and Birmingham. However, thanks to VT's VHF timetable we can no longer run any train between Coventry and Birmingham all stations without it being caught up. As a result, all trains need to stop at a variety of stations. All our off-peak Coventry trains are now to/from Northampton - that's more than ever before - and therefore have to be stoppers.

So what you're saying is - Northampton has lost out in having a decent service to Birmingham and it's all Virgin's fault?

- The xx46 and xx49 are so close together as they fill the same path (and hence the removal of the WFJ stop). Both are generally going to be /1 or /3 trains. With the introduction of the /3s, Northampton will get even more 2+2 config trains.

- The broken connections at Nuneaton and Stafford are unfortunate. The pathing isn't great between Rugby and Stafford due - again - to the VHF timetable. 110mph helps but not enough to squeeze us into Stafford 5 mins earlier (and thus misses the Liverpool train).

- One of the fundamental reason that Project 110 came to fruition was to increase capacity in the medium term, particularly on MK and Northampton trains, to prevent so many people from standing considerable lengths of time. During the off-peak, Northampton doesn't need longer trains, however, except at key times (which we'll continue to address).

The bit in bold is very debatable - if you look at some of your Saturday morning departures from Northampton (and that's off-peak) they are standing room only - that's before they've even stopped at Wolverton / MK. Last time I went into London with my 5 year old son, we actually got off your train at MK and used the Southern service from MK as we could actually get a seat. There may be some off-peak services from Northampton which leave with less than 50% of the seats occupied, but I'll bet it's not many.

Anyway, as with all timetable changes, the focus is on improving things for the majority, which we believe this achieves. The fact that any timetable changes have been possible is a feat in itself given the scale of congestion on the line.

I'd like to believe you, but once again it seems to be focused on improving the lot of MK - which already enjoys a vastly better service than it's neighbouring towns - and Northampton, once again, loses out. The cynic in me would say this is because at MK you actually have competition for passengers from Virgin & Southern, whereas for Northampton it's LM or nothing.

 

[All Line Rover]

I think you're being unfair on Virgin here - I suspect there was always a premium to travel down to MK from Northampton to then travel north - even in BR days.

This could very easily be accommodated by LM issuing London Midland only fares from Northampton to TV stations / Stafford / Stoke / Crewe, rather than a via Long Buckby fares. That way it avoids any possible contention with Virgin.

I suspect in BR days there was the option of changing at Rugby. An option which Virgin have eliminated, having decided to focus solely on Milton Keynes.

It is Virgin who price both the 'via Long Buckby' and 'Any Permitted' fares (which are available for journeys such as Northampton to Manchester). The 'Any Permitted' fare is pointless for these journeys, because even though it is more expensive than the 'via Long Buckby' fare, still isn't valid via Milton Keynes so has identical routeing!

London Midland have, it appears, decided to alter the easements to allow such 'Any Permitted' tickets to be valid via Milton Keynes. I wouldn't go as far as to say that LM are being 'kind' or 'generous', as it has always been intended for these fares to be valid via Milton Keynes, but I appreciate David's effort and some of your comments are coming across as being rather harsh, even ignorant.

For example, London Midland already have 'LM Only' fares between Northampton and Rugeley / Stafford / Stoke / Crewe, undercutting Virgin's 'Any Permitted' fares. These also will be valid via Milton Keynes because of the amended easements (even though I'm not sure why you'd want to do this because of the ideal connections at Rugby if travelling with LM - the only reason you'd want to travel via Milton Keynes is to connect onto Virgin Trains services).

(Additionally, fares such as Northampton to Birmingham will not be valid via Milton Keynes, no matter which ticket type you buy, as going via Milton Keynes is not a mapped route for these journeys).

Small consolation really compared to the loss of service. Incidentally are you going to ensure southbound connections are smoothed wherever possible as well?

Small consolation?! As I said above, I appreciate that these 'Any Permitted' fares have always been intended to be valid via Milton Keynes as they are more expensive than the 'via Long Buckby' fares, but at least Northampton passengers will now have the option of a much faster, if more expensive, journey by travelling via Milton Keynes (connecting onto Virgin Trains service).

The southbound London Midland connections are, from what I've seen, well timed.