Virgin Plans Extra Liverpool Lime Street Services from 10 June 2019

[VT 390]

There should be more virgin Glasgow services rather than Liverpool as there is only 1tph Glasgow to Euston and 1tp2h Glasgow to Euston via Brum. 1.5tph is not enough and it should be increased to 2.5tph imo with 2tph running the Euston trent valley express. Liverpool do not need more as there are planes LNWR services to run from Liverpool.

I agree that there should defiantly be more Glasgow services. I would have thought that it would have made more sense to have the new Blackpool Pendolino services run to Glasgow instead as when I travelled on them they were very lightly loaded and the following Glasgow services south of Preston were very full.

 

[prod_pep]

As a regular user of the Liverpool - London VT route, I can confidently say this is potentially excellent news and that more trains are needed.

 

[mmh]

Whilst I understand the need for extra services to/from Liverpool, I'd have personally thought it would make more sense to add the proposed number of extra services to run say between London Euston and Lancaster, allowing a few already very busy London to Glasgow and v.v. services to run none-stop between London and Preston and v.v. not only speeding up journey times, but also increasing capacity between London and Preston.

First stop Preston is far too far north on a London - Glasgow service to my mind. Not everyone is going to or from London.

First stop Warrington isn't ideal but just about works, skipping Warrington would wreck connections to a very wide area.

 

[dk1]

I agree that there should defiantly be more Glasgow services. I would have thought that it would have made more sense to have the new Blackpool Pendolino services run to Glasgow instead as when I travelled on them they were very lightly loaded and the following Glasgow services south of Preston were very full.

But sending a Blackpool service to Glasgow loses the Pendolino for around 5.5hrs rather than 1.5hrs so just doesn't work. Better to offer far less attractive advance fares from Preston/Wigan/Warrington on the Anglo-Scot when there is a Blackpool train close by which I would assume they are doing already to balance loadings. Just announced that passenger numbers from the Fylde Coast resort to London have risen by 8% since the launch of the extra electric services.

 

[mmh]

As a regular user of the Liverpool - London VT route, I can confidently say this is potentially excellent news and that more trains are needed.

Likewise. I've no idea why there's a myth the Liverpool trains are empty, they're not, far from it.

 

[dk1]

Likewise. I've no idea why there's a myth the Liverpool trains are empty, they're not, far from it.

I have usually found them well loaded.

 

[Modron]

Might get the 'omg are you mad?' treatment for this, but could a Blackpool service and a Glasgow Central service not run combined (as two Voyager units) and split at Preston?

 

[Glenn1969]

Just a thought- are the Pendolino Blackpool trains a preemptive strike to steal a march on Alliance or is there actually a market for 9 or 10 trains a day from the Fylde Coast to London?

 

[VT 390]

Might get the 'omg are you mad?' treatment for this, but could a Blackpool service and a Glasgow Central service not run combined (as two Voyager units) and split at Preston?

I like the idea however I do not think it would work because I do not think there would be enough Voyagers for this as they are required for all Chester and North Wales services, the Shrewsbury services and some Euston to Scotland via Birmingham Services. Even if there were I do not think it would be good to have another WCML service running diesel under wires all the way especially considering that the Blackpool route has only just been electrified so as many electric services as possible should use it. Also 5 coaches seams a bit of a wasted path for a Glasgow service but in addition to the existing services may be okay.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just a thought- are the Pendolino Blackpool trains a preemptive strike to steal a march on Alliance or is there actually a market for 9 or 10 trains a day from the Fylde Coast to London?

The Planner thought not, in post #23...

 

[prod_pep]

Likewise. I've no idea why there's a myth the Liverpool trains are empty, they're not, far from it.

Absolutely. Anyone who disagrees should've 'enjoyed' the 13.47 LIV-EUS last Wednesday. Packed 9 car with the joys of a 2 hour 20 minute delay en route and subsequent diversion.

 

[underbank]

Could they not use platform 5 at Lancaster to turn back trains, this way it is out of the way of the through trains.

They could run it to Carnforth to turn back - it's what they always used to do with the Lancaster terminators, but I've not seen one there for ages now, so presumably they turn back from Lancaster platform 3 instead at the moment?

 

[VT 390]

They could run it to Carnforth to turn back - it's what they always used to do with the Lancaster terminators, but I've not seen one there for ages now, so presumably they turn back from Lancaster platform 3 instead at the moment?

This is probably a terrible idea but would there be any demand for the services to run through to Penrith or Carlisle?

 

[jamesst]

Absolutely. Anyone who disagrees should've 'enjoyed' the 13.47 LIV-EUS last Wednesday. Packed 9 car with the joys of a 2 hour 20 minute delay en route and subsequent diversion.

Fully agree, about time this heavily used route gets more services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just a thought- are the Pendolino Blackpool trains a preemptive strike to steal a march on Alliance or is there actually a market for 9 or 10 trains a day from the Fylde Coast to London?

The DfT asked Virgin to offer services to Blackpool (and Shrewsbury) after 2012.
It's now part of the franchise spec.

The extra Liverpools are probably the simplest way of utilising the spare 390s.
Ideally some of them should go to Preston/Lancaster to relieve the Glasgows, as has been in the pipeline for a long time.
Or replace some more 5-car Voyagers on the Scotland run via Brum.
For my money, the Glasgows are the busiest hourly VT services (south of Preston).
It's also possible this is an extract from the Virgin/Stagecoach/SNCF WCP bid now on the table with DfT (ie potentially part of the new franchise starting next year).
It also fits in with the extra capacity supposed to have been generated by the Norton Bridge scheme - so NR can't say "no room"!

 

[route101]

Glasgow services tend to fill up as you head south ! And opposite heading north in the evening at least , last time was a Saturday 1630 Euston to Glasgow , probably quietest time of week NB. Glasgow could do with some extras throughout the day.

 

[fowler9]

Whilst I understand the need for extra services to/from Liverpool, I'd have personally thought it would make more sense to add the proposed number of extra services to run say between London Euston and Lancaster, allowing a few already very busy London to Glasgow and v.v. services to run none-stop between London and Preston and v.v. not only speeding up journey times, but also increasing capacity between London and Preston.

How many direct services to London an hour does Preston currently have?

 

[dk1]

How many direct services to London an hour does Preston currently have?

Hourly plus extra Blackpools & via West Mids. All clearly shown in the VT timetables.

 

[Kite159]

How many direct services to London an hour does Preston currently have?

2, however as one has a large time penalty by going via Birmingham* most folk with open tickets will change at Crewe for the train from Liverpool as those have plenty of seats available (or they have advance tickets which makes them change at Crewe)

(*I'm pretty sure the service which goes via Birmingham gets overtaken by the next service from Preston to London)

 

[cle]

How about Carlisle as a terminus if Lancaster doesn't work - mopping up all the Lancs/Lakes stops and allowing those hours' Glasgow services to run London - Preston - Carlisle - Glasgow, or similar (possibly Lancaster or Oxenholme, never both!) - with the odd Motherwell added back in.

Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only true journeys from London where rail and air compete on journey time at a volume worth attending to. The rest are for BA connections, by and large. To achieve modal shift with those two cities, trimming 10-20 mins from journeys makes a difference.

Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith - all have good enough service north. Additional London services seem an obvious fix to this.

 

[Class 170101]

Opposite hours to the Alliance paths I think, just leaves the nominal xx.57 path if they get these.

But I didn't think this path worked without the xx46 going inside at Rugby which unless its 16:46, 17:46 SX and 18:46 FSX doesn't and I can't see LNWR giving up their current slots they have for their 110mph path for the xx57.

 

[30907]

How about Carlisle as a terminus if Lancaster doesn't work - mopping up all the Lancs/Lakes stops and allowing those hours' Glasgow services to run London - Preston - Carlisle - Glasgow, or similar (possibly Lancaster or Oxenholme, never both!) - with the odd Motherwell added back in.

Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only true journeys from London where rail and air compete on journey time at a volume worth attending to. The rest are for BA connections, by and large. To achieve modal shift with those two cities, trimming 10-20 mins from journeys makes a difference.

Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith - all have good enough service north. Additional London services seem an obvious fix to this.

To repeat my #17. Yes, ideally, but that requires a proper timetable recast - which TBH I thought had been in the pipeline for some time, not an overlay on the existing one.
Till then loading North of Lancaster don't IME warrant an extra train (Based on Virgin's present application you could run 0933 EUS-Carlisle and back but that would be all and you would lose two Liverpools).

 

[dk1]

To repeat my #17. Yes, ideally, but that requires a proper timetable recast - which TBH I thought had been in the pipeline for some time, not an overlay on the existing one.
Till then loading North of Lancaster don't IME warrant an extra train (Based on Virgin's present application you could run 0933 EUS-Carlisle and back but that would be all and you would lose two Liverpools).

My thoughts exactly.

 

[AndrewE]

How about Carlisle as a terminus if Lancaster doesn't work - mopping up all the Lancs/Lakes stops and allowing those hours' Glasgow services to run London - Preston - Carlisle - Glasgow, or similar (possibly Lancaster or Oxenholme, never both!) - with the odd Motherwell added back in.
Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only true journeys from London where rail and air compete on journey time at a volume worth attending to. The rest are for BA connections, by and large. To achieve modal shift with those two cities, trimming 10-20 mins from journeys makes a difference.
Warrington, Wigan, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith - all have good enough service north. Additional London services seem an obvious fix to this.

You are overlooking the major weakness in the current WCML Anglo-Scottish timetable. The only northbound trains that call at Crewe are the hourly services from Euston via Birmingham which run alternately to Glasgow and Edinburgh. (The Crewe calls on the other trains were removed to address complaints of overcrowding!) Hence the service north for people connecting in from the Welsh borders and Shrewsbury and from the Stoke direction relies on trains that are already full from the West Midlands (and all the connections at New St) plus the people on cheap through tickets. Up to £15 cheaper Euston to Carlisle, and only £70 if you get the 13.43 from Euston to Glasgow via Brum instead of £140 on the 14.30 direct.
There is a problem with Virgin pricing people off direct trains (i.e. winding the prices up so high that they take less convenient services instead) when those "secondary" trains are really needed for passengers on the routes that they were supposed to serve.

 

[Peter0124]

Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only true journeys from London where rail and air compete on journey time at a volume worth attending to. The rest are for BA connections, by and large. To achieve modal shift with those two cities, trimming 10-20 mins from journeys makes a difference.

Edinburgh and it's 3tph London service on a Sunday is mad! Yes edinburgh market is larger than glasgow but If that gets 3tph to London on the least busiest day of the week then surely Glasgow should atleast get a 2tph service all week.

 

[dk1]

Edinburgh and it's 3tph London service on a Sunday is mad! Yes edinburgh market is larger than glasgow but If that gets 3tph to London on the least busiest day of the week then surely Glasgow should atleast get a 2tph service all week.

Why do you think it's the least busiest day? Sunday afternoon is 'peak' for long distance travel. Hence why West Coast have ramped up to full VHF after 12:00 on that day since 2008.

 

[Peter0124]

Why do you think it's the least busiest day? Sunday afternoon is 'peak' for long distance travel. Hence why West Coast have ramped up to full VHF after 12:00 on that day since 2008.

Ah yeah, my bad.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Why do you think it's the least busiest day? Sunday afternoon is 'peak' for long distance travel. Hence why West Coast have ramped up to full VHF after 12:00 on that day since 2008.

And, indeed, why a weekend when a 24-hour possession is required sees a closure from Sat lunchtime to Sunday lunchtime, not simply the tradition of all day on Sunday.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Why not run the additional Liverpool services via Warrington and St.Helens J - then the fast Euston - Glasgow could do at least Euston - Wigan non-stop with the via B'ham service picking up the Warrington -Scotland traffic

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not run the additional Liverpool services via Warrington and St.Helens J - then the fast Euston - Glasgow could do at least Euston - Wigan non-stop with the via B'ham service picking up the Warrington -Scotland traffic

Because that would leave no service between Warrington and Wigan?