Virgin confirm seeking approval for additional calls in Trent Valley

[Bletchleyite]

Why are people talking negatively about one of the few instances where there is genuine competition on fares, resulting in reasonable fares for travellers??

Because...

1. It is primarily abstractive from a subsidised/premium paying operation, thus costing the taxpayer money.

2. It causes overcrowding to the disadvantage of those who have no choice but to use the London Midland service, as the fares are not high enough to make obtaining and using additional rolling stock economic.

3. The real competitor is the car. This petty spat causes empty seats on Pendolinos and severely overcrowded stopping Desiros. It is, like almost every other instance of on-rail competition, a nonsense. On-rail competition would only make any sense in the event of full privatisation and deregulation including the removal of all subsidy, and even then would most likely result in an overall poorer service due to constraints of infrastructure.

All networks have cheap advances. As for any cheaper LM only walk up fares, I really do not see the issue. Over longer distances the services take much much longer, so they should be cheaper.

Advances should only be sold on trains on which there are no standing passengers expected (it is easy enough to survey this). Unless it is economic to add additional rolling stock so these are not sardine wagons, the fares should not be cheaper.

 

[DarloRich]

Why are people talking negatively about one of the few instances where there is genuine competition on fares, resulting in reasonable fares for travellers??

All networks have cheap advances. As for any cheaper LM only walk up fares, I really do not see the issue. Over longer distances the services take much much longer, so they should be cheaper.

exactly - why are so many posters against competition?

 

[Bletchleyite]

exactly - why are so many posters against competition?

Because all the while TOCs squabble over each others' existing passengers, and those passengers pack into 4-car EMUs, leaving far quieter 11-car Pendolinos with fewer passengers, the cars are still crowding onto the M1 and M6, and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice of the suppressed potential railway custom they contain. (Though I must admit passing the cars on the M1 near Northampton from a train doing often over twice the speed is one of the biggest adverts for WCML rail travel going).

It's the same as buses. Bus companies squabble over their existing passengers, while the bus is sitting in a queue of cars, a number of whose drivers and passengers could be on the bus if only we would get it right. Things like Stagecoach Gold are heading the right way for that, but it has taken a long time and a number of fundamental points remain missed.

The best thing is for the railway, as one, to target all those people in those cars. The aim should be for those trains to fly past a near-empty bit of motorway, while the Desiros, which would probably need to be 8-car with passengers attracted from the cars, would offer a seat to all those passengers who have no choice but to use them.

MKC-EUS is a prime example. LM only, 14 ish quid. VT only, 14 ish quid. What they could do is charge 14 ish quid and let people use both, distributing revenue based on usage. It wouldn't lose them a lot.

 

[Class 170101]

via Warrington??

Correct. One VT service per hour at Runcorn I would have thought is sufficient.

 

[mikestone1952]

.

MKC-EUS is a prime example. LM only, 14 ish quid. VT only, 14 ish quid. What they could do is charge 14 ish quid and let people use both, distributing revenue based on usage. It wouldn't lose them a lot.

;
I understood the TOC setting the all operators fare wasn't permitted to have a cheaper walk up - however this does seem to be the case between Euston and MKC?

 

[Bletchleyite]

;
I understood the TOC setting the all operators fare wasn't permitted to have a cheaper walk up - however this does seem to be the case between Euston and MKC?

It came about because of a change in the lead operator on the flow. This was VT as at one point they operated the bulk of services, but switched to Silverlink (now LM) because of the change that resulted in the balance of services tipping the other way.

LM are allowed to retain their existing dedicated fares by way of grandfather rights, but may not introduce any new ones. VT are not the owner of the flow, and so can add new ones and indeed have done.

 

[DarloRich]

Because all the while TOCs squabble over each others' existing passengers, and those passengers pack into 4-car EMUs, leaving far quieter 11-car Pendolinos with fewer passengers, the cars are still crowding onto the M1 and M6, and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice of the suppressed potential railway custom they contain. (Though I must admit passing the cars on the M1 near Northampton from a train doing often over twice the speed is one of the biggest adverts for WCML rail travel going).

It's the same as buses. Bus companies squabble over their existing passengers, while the bus is sitting in a queue of cars, a number of whose drivers and passengers could be on the bus if only we would get it right. Things like Stagecoach Gold are heading the right way for that, but it has taken a long time and a number of fundamental points remain missed.

The best thing is for the railway, as one, to target all those people in those cars. The aim should be for those trains to fly past a near-empty bit of motorway, while the Desiros, which would probably need to be 8-car with passengers attracted from the cars, would offer a seat to all those passengers who have no choice but to use them.

MKC-EUS is a prime example. LM only, 14 ish quid. VT only, 14 ish quid. What they could do is charge 14 ish quid and let people use both, distributing revenue based on usage. It wouldn't lose them a lot.

you just don't like sharing the trains with all the commoners

I would contend that many of the passengers, especially on the Trent Valley LM services, ARE new passengers brought on board by new services, better links, decent trains and ( perhaps most importantly) a decently priced fare. My view is that without that competition we will simply see the price ramped up to make the TOC more profit. Competition keeps them honest.

 

[pt_mad]

If I am reading this right and they are planning to stop the 1910 Euston to Holyhead @ Nuneaton and Stafford as well as Milton Keynes it will be utterly hideous. Train is rammed with Milton Keynes customers as it is and provides a grim experience.

Looks like this is going to happen judging by the timetable websites. The 1907 Euston - Liverpool will run non stop as far as Runcorn.

Obviously this will give Leicester/East Mids/East Anglia a new connection for Stafford/Crewe/Chester/North Wales at Nuneaton by stopping that Holyhead service there. Looking at it the current Liverpool which stops there is not a connection from the East Mids as it departs before the Stansted Airport - Birmingham service arrives at Nuneaton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

yI would contend that many of the passengers, especially on the Trent Valley LM services, ARE new passengers brought on board by new services, better links, decent trains and ( perhaps most importantly) a decently priced fare.

But they will be scared off by the train being overcrowded when they attempt to use it. So a low fare is a good thing, but not so low that it is non-viable to provide the extra required capacity for everyone to have a seat on non-commuter services.

 

[gordonthemoron]

LM TV trains should be at least 8 car throughout the day, possibly 12 in peaks

 

[DarloRich]

But they will be scared off by the train being overcrowded when they attempt to use it. So a low fare is a good thing, but not so low that it is non-viable to provide the extra required capacity for everyone to have a seat on non-commuter services.

I would say it has been a success. There are growing numbers of commuters from the likes of Nuneaton and Tamworth to MK and London and these trains have opened that up as an option.

The main LM issues are: not providing 8 cars on the TV route and their weekend allocation policy.

Cheap fares aren't to blame for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say it has been a success. There are growing numbers of commuters from the likes of Nuneaton and Tamworth to MK and London and these trains have opened that up as an option.

Agreed, though commuters will mostly be using season tickets, and so the price-dumped (Super) Off Peaks and Advances are not relevant.

The main LM issues are: not providing 8 cars on the TV route and their weekend allocation policy.

The issue is primarily the contract signed with Siemens that makes use of additional Desiros off-peak and on weekends uneconomic. If they were leased in the traditional manner and maintained in house, this problem would not exist. Perhaps a large fleet of 319s would solve that problem. But I agree, even without those fares they need to be 8-car all day, every day. As do most Liverpool to Birmingham services. Indeed, just about the only LM WCML EMU service that justifies a 4-car set is the St Albans branch and possibly the 0134 off Euston/0315ish off MKC during the week, just about everything else needs 8 at least.

At least the Saturday evening "vomit comets" are all 12-car now, it's a start.

(Challenge to LM staff: I want to see a genuine picture of a Desiro in a station with "The Vomit Comet" on the displays Last amusing one I saw was "Polesworth" on one at Euston, with the entertaining "Late Again!" on an unspecified arrival at Bletchley which indeed was.)

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Agreed, though commuters will mostly be using season tickets, and so the price-dumped (Super) Off Peaks and Advances are not relevant.

A Nuneaton-Euston annual season is £26.66 per daily journey (assuming 240 journeys a year, as nationalrail.co.uk does).

A Nuneaton-Euston super off-peak is £26.00.

I'm not sure I'd call the latter any more "price-dumped" than the former.

(I do very much agree with you on the point that advances should only be sold for seats that can't be filled by walk-up tickets, though.)

 

[All Line Rover]

Using the 350s as the principle stock for places such as Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield is a bit like using the class 700s for services to Grantham, Newark, Kettering, Market Harborough, Corby and Loughborough. You might consider the TV services like Waterloo to Southampton but that is simply daft, they are much more similar to the stations mentioned above and places like Chippenham.

As for it all being the DfT's fault that is largely true. I met the DfT when they proposed it. They used made up stats to justify it. However, very early on after the VHF timetable was implemented it was clear to everyone that Virgin could, if they wished, stop all the Chester/Holyhead services at Nuneaton with no impact to the timetable. They chose not to despite lots of evidence pointing to the situation we have now. That is fact as I was talking directly to Virgin, the DfT and Network Rail at the time. So Virgin are very definitely part of the problem.

Maybe, though I would point to routes such as Paddington to Worcester and Marylebone to Birmingham as examples of long distance routes which operate comparable (or, more accurately, worse) trains.

It's also worth remembering that London Midland season tickets are reasonably priced. For example, Rugeley to London is £9920 1ST and £6400 STD (albeit the Travelcard seasons are very bizarrely priced), whereas Derby to London (a slightly shorter point-to-point distance) is £16200 1ST and £9100 STD.

The biggest problem with the London Midland Trent Valley service is the lack of commuter trains. The only arrival into London before the hourly xx:50 arrival kicks in (at approx. 09:50) is at 08:05. And that's it. Just the one service! The same problem exists in the other direction. The first fast departure from Euston is at 07:46 (there should really be a 06:46) and the final fast departure from Euston is at 17:46. The 18:46 departs at 18:49 and runs via Northampton (why can't there be an 18:46 Trent Valley departure and an 18:49 to Northampton, or to Birmingham via Northampton?) and the only subsequent train is the 20:13, which again runs via Northampton.

If I were campaigning for improved services to the Trent Valley stations I would focus on getting additional fast London Midland services for pre 9am arrivals into Euston and post 6pm departures from Euston, as well as a 06:46 departure from Euston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 18:46 departs at 18:49 and runs via Northampton (why can't there be an 18:46 Trent Valley departure and an 18:49 to Northampton, or to Birmingham via Northampton?)

Probably because there isn't a path for one; an extra service was added around then to alleviate overcrowding on the former 1849, but if that path was wasted on a 4-car Trent Valley service there would be overcrowding on what was left.

It would be nice to carry the WCML-Takt on into the peaks, but it would require 16 or 20-car trains to avoid severe overcrowding (which are presently delivered by splitting them in two, e.g. the 1821/1829 provide a "16 car train" in two halves to replace the old, heavily overcrowded 1824).

 

[6Gman]

But I agree, even without those fares they need to be 8-car all day, every day. As do most Liverpool to Birmingham services.

I use the Liverpool - Birmingham service a lot.

The only times I have seen standing passengers are:

a) the 1804 ex L'pool after football; seats available by Crewe
b) peaktime ex B'ham; seats available after Penkridge
c) the 3 Queens event at L'pool !

And 8-car sets won't fit in many platforms.

 

[setdown]

The last couple of services into Liverpool on a Sunday evening always have standings passengers at each set of doors along the entire train.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Maybe, though I would point to routes such as Paddington to Worcester and Marylebone to Birmingham as examples of long distance routes which operate comparable (or, more accurately, worse) trains.

It's also worth remembering that London Midland season tickets are reasonably priced. For example, Rugeley to London is £9920 1ST and £6400 STD (albeit the Travelcard seasons are very bizarrely priced), whereas Derby to London (a slightly shorter point-to-point distance) is £16200 1ST and £9100 STD.

The biggest problem with the London Midland Trent Valley service is the lack of commuter trains. The only arrival into London before the hourly xx:50 arrival kicks in (at approx. 09:50) is at 08:05. And that's it. Just the one service! The same problem exists in the other direction. The first fast departure from Euston is at 07:46 (there should really be a 06:46) and the final fast departure from Euston is at 17:46. The 18:46 departs at 18:49 and runs via Northampton (why can't there be an 18:46 Trent Valley departure and an 18:49 to Northampton, or to Birmingham via Northampton?) and the only subsequent train is the 20:13, which again runs via Northampton.

If I were campaigning for improved services to the Trent Valley stations I would focus on getting additional fast London Midland services for pre 9am arrivals into Euston and post 6pm departures from Euston, as well as a 06:46 departure from Euston.

There is no doubt that LM only season tickets are reasonably priced, that the new LM TV services have taken advantage of a huge latent demand in the TV area. Look at Atherstone, for example, did all of those people drive to Nuneaton or Tamworth before? Maybe some but not all of them by any means. Nuneaton, Bedworth and Hunckley RUG have been campaigning for more LM peak services ever since Virgin's monopoly ended. It is daft that there is a huge gap between the 0630 and 0818 services to London. It wouldn't matter if a service at say 0700 took a bit longer to get to London at that time. Also in the evening too and we are led to believe that two more evening LM services will be introduced in May.

 

[mikestone1952]

The additional trains are from December. There was no date specified in the original announcement.

 

[Class 170101]

The biggest problem with the London Midland Trent Valley service is the lack of commuter trains. The only arrival into London before the hourly xx:50 arrival kicks in (at approx. 09:50) is at 08:05. And that's it. Just the one service! The same problem exists in the other direction. The first fast departure from Euston is at 07:46 (there should really be a 06:46) and the final fast departure from Euston is at 17:46. The 18:46 departs at 18:49 and runs via Northampton (why can't there be an 18:46 Trent Valley departure and an 18:49 to Northampton, or to Birmingham via Northampton?) and the only subsequent train is the 20:13, which again runs via Northampton.

If I were campaigning for improved services to the Trent Valley stations I would focus on getting additional fast London Midland services for pre 9am arrivals into Euston and post 6pm departures from Euston, as well as a 06:46 departure from Euston.

There is an 18:52 to Birmingham New Street via Northampton.

For earlier services from the Trent Valley (filling in the gap described), I would suggest that a four (or eight) car from Birmingham and a four car (or eight) from the Trent Valley may have to join at Rugby (total 12 carriage) to then run non-stop via the Weedon. The current reason these services run via Northampton is to provide capacity from that station - some carriages start there - note the train then runs non-stop to Euston.

Probably because there isn't a path for one; an extra service was added around then to alleviate overcrowding on the former 1849, but if that path was wasted on a 4-car Trent Valley service there would be overcrowding on what was left.

If the 18:49 could reach Rugby by 19:41 (via the Weedon) this path could probably run in a similar way to the 17:46 departure. I would suggest though it would have to omit Milton Keynes as a stop. The main problem is the 18:46 slot is available Monday to Thursday evenings but NOT on Fridays when VT use it for a Preston service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest though it would have to omit Milton Keynes as a stop.

That falls down as the majority of LM's fast-train market at that time is Milton Keynes commuters, and thus omitting MKC from any peak-time LM service is not really acceptable. So it will need to carry on running via Northampton.

 

[driver_m]

There is an 18:52 to Birmingham New Street via Northampton.

For earlier services from the Trent Valley (filling in the gap described), I would suggest that a four (or eight) car from Birmingham and a four car (or eight) from the Trent Valley may have to join at Rugby (total 12 carriage) to then run non-stop via the Weedon. The current reason these services run via Northampton is to provide capacity from that station - some carriages start there - note the train then runs non-stop to Euston.



If the 18:49 could reach Rugby by 19:41 (via the Weedon) this path could probably run in a similar way to the 17:46 departure. I would suggest though it would have to omit Milton Keynes as a stop. The main problem is the 18:46 slot is available Monday to Thursday evenings but NOT on Fridays when VT use it for a Preston service.

What do you do with the 1857 service that would be inevitably be held up by this idea. (And as a consequence the 1900, 1903, 1907 and 1910)

 

[Class 170101]

Then either the 18:46 Preston moves to 18:36/7 or both the Manchester and Birmingham and Preston depart Euston and run three to four minutes earlier to Rugby and thus open the gap for an 18:46 LM service maybe.

 

[driver_m]

Then either the 18:46 Preston moves to 18:36/7 or both the Manchester and Birmingham and Preston depart Euston and run three to four minutes earlier to Rugby and thus open the gap for an 18:46 LM service maybe.

Drivers PNB? Is the stock in the right place ten mins earlier?, 1837 leaving at same time from DC platforms. That's got to fit. There's a lot to making things fit and it's not simply a case of moving a train out of its existing time slot.

 

[All Line Rover]

If I were in London Midland's position I would push for the 18:46 Friday-only VT service to be scrapped. There are a variety of reasons why it think it is unnecessary, not least the fact that it is full of passengers using some of the cheapest tiers of advance tickets, which are supposed to exist to encourage discretionary travel; not travel at one of the busiest times on the busiest day of the week. The 18:46 path would be of greater benefit to London Midland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For earlier services from the Trent Valley (filling in the gap described), I would suggest that a four (or eight) car from Birmingham and a four car (or eight) from the Trent Valley may have to join at Rugby (total 12 carriage) to then run non-stop via the Weedon. The current reason these services run via Northampton is to provide capacity from that station - some carriages start there - note the train then runs non-stop to Euston.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your argument. The Birmingham London Midland services serve commuters to Northampton. What benefit would there be in calling them at Rugby, Milton Keynes and London only, when all of these stations are already served by Virgin Trains' Birmingham services?

 

[Class 170101]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your argument. The Birmingham London Midland services serve commuters to Northampton. What benefit would there be in calling them at Rugby, Milton Keynes and London only, when all of these stations are already served by Virgin Trains' Birmingham services?

The idea being to improve the Trent Valley journey times and opportunities. If possible why not start a Northamtpon service from Rugby having connected out of the Birmingham / Trent Valley to London service?

 

[All Line Rover]

The idea being to improve the Trent Valley journey times and opportunities. If possible why not start a Northamtpon service from Rugby having connected out of the Birmingham / Trent Valley to London service?

If you mean your idea is to 'save' one of the paths presently used between Northampton and London, I don't think that would go down very well with the people of Northampton or the DfT!

 

[pt_mad]

One thing which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense is that a ticket on the new 0945 fast VT service from Nuneaton to Euston (ex Manchester) from may will be at the anytime single rate of £75.00, or the anytime return cost of £150.00.
Even the advance single will cost £35.00.

This is regardless of the fact that a walk up off peak return for the 0916 LM Nuneaton - Euston service is only £38.00, and the train gets in 24 minutes earlier with a journey time of only 1hr 13 mins.

Is this a viable ticket arrangement for this new stopping train?

The new May 0907 VT from Lichfield and Tamworth - Euston will offer an advance single for £10.00. This does seem a lot more realistic.

 

[al green]

I was at a LM briefing yesterday and we were told that from Dec there will be two more LM TV services in the evening, 19.46 and 20.46 From Euston.

 

[jfollows]

This is scrapped from May timetable. Instead a 1940 Euston - Manchester via Crewe will call at Tamworth and Lichfield every weekday.

The 19:40 Euston-Manchester has called at Tamworth and Lichfield for a number of years, for a couple of years it stopped at Stafford but not then at Crewe, but for a number of years it has stopped at Crewe as well. Amusingly it omits Stockport by using the Styal line.