Virgin Trains West Coast - London to Scotland via Birmingham - A Complete Failure?

[WestCoast]

I used to be a regular Preston to Birmingham and would agree that the extended journey times due to the Wolverhampton stop are not ideal. However, on balance (and I have used the new through service half a dozen times) I would say the north of the WCML has profited from the changes in terms of reduced overcrowding and a through service to stations south of New Street.

The Scotland-Birmingham services were in my experience badly overcrowded at certain times of the week, particularly the Edinburgh services in the summer Í have many "fond" memories of.

 

[Starmill]

It's no secret that passengers are allergic to changing, and are willing to sacrifice time, money and comfort in order to avoid it. It's their choice!

 

[thealexweb]

From my only experience, on a Friday in early December 2011, the 16:52 Virgin Trains Voyager from Edinburgh to Birmingham was almost deserted inside all the way from Carlisle 18:08 (where I got on) to Wolverhampton 20:39 (where I got off). I think that there were only two other people in the same carriage as me.

But the 16:40 Pedonlino from Glasgow Central to Euston (not via Birmingham) was reasonably well used but I did get two seats to myself.

Is the 16:52 Edinburgh to Euston via Birmingham as underused on its nothern section as I observed its predecessor to be?

I used the 16:52 between Edinburgh Waverley and Wigan North Western last week. I would estimate it left Waverley about 60% full with many many more joining at Haymarket. The stock used was an 11 car Class 390.

 

[QueensCurve]

Once again, you are forgetting that London is not the only traffic source/sink on the WCML. There are huge numbers of intermediate journeys, chiefly involving MKC, Crewe, Preston and Lancaster but also other stations.

The thrust of the "Virgin High Frequency" timetable introduced in December 2008 has been to funnel people in and out of Euston rather than best serving the needs of travelers using intermediate stops. It is not just "VHF" but also UHF (urban high frequency).

One of my most frequent journeys (approx monthly) has been Penrith to Stafford or, more recently, Penrith to Stone. Penrith to Stafford used to be an easy journey with a change at Crewe waiting just a few minutes from the Glasgow to Euston to get the Liverpool to Euston. It took 2 hours.

Since Dec 2008 the Glasgow to Euston hasn't stopped at Crewe. Given that I normally use the 10:03 of Penrith, this means changing twice, between Lancaster and Warrington and again at Crewe. This took 3 hours.

Since I have been traveling to Stone rather than Stafford little changed at first arriving Crewe at xx:57 (P5) and departing xx:33 (P3). This connection was only missed once.

Since the timings of the LM Euston to Crewe were accelerated, things have got worse. Now it is Crewe arr xx:57 (P5) and departing xx:02 (P3). I choose my exit point from the Virgin so that only need a few seconds to get to Platform 3. Nevertheless, the connection into the Crewe to Euston is missed more often than not.

Waiting 55 mins for the next service is more frustrating since LM seem to have changed practice to keep the set locked until the crew arrive to take it out.

What adds insult to injury is that, sitting on the train just before departure, I invariably see the next Virgin arrive in time to make the connection.

This is very frustrating revealing as it does:-

1. Train planning not recognising the need for good connections
2. Virgins inability to achieve reliable arrival times at intermediate stations

I would welcome Virgin's thoughts on this if they have any lurkers present.

 

[All Line Rover]

Virgins inability to achieve reliable arrival times at intermediate stations

Agreed! The 6 minute connection at Warrington with the ATW train to Chester and North Wales being one such example. I'd struggle to think of a weekday where there hasn't been at least one missed connection. ATW never hold their services, even if 30 seconds would suffice, though with the regularity of VTWC services being delayed by a handful of minutes I can understand why. None of this is reflected in VTWC's PPM "statistics" of course, because a 5 to 8 minute delay will always disappear once the train reaches Wolverhampton.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The thrust of the "Virgin High Frequency" timetable introduced in December 2008 has been to funnel people in and out of Euston rather than best serving the needs of travelers using intermediate stops.

This.

It was repeatedly pointed out at the time that the VHF timetable was shafting people at intermediate stations and at "less important" destinations, but neither the SRA nor Virgin seemed to give two hoots.

As it stands, the timetable is ridiculous, and has been since it was drawn up. Birmingham and Manchester do not need 3tph each- Leeds makes do with 2tph perfectly happily. Liverpool needs more than 1tph, and Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow needs more than 1tph (I'm ignoring the via Birmingham train as it's so slow).

The only saving grace of joining the London-Birmingham and Birmingham-Scotland trains is that it re-opens intermediate journey opportunities that were destroyed by VHF. And provides enough capacity to carry out these intermediate journeys, because a single Voyager on the Birmingham-Scotland trains was an untenable position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that 2tph (with perhaps peak extras to 4tph) would have been adequate for Manchester and Birmingham. My main changes to the timetable, though, would be to improve connections - in particular I'd call everything that passes through Crewe there in order to facilitate better connections. The Brum-Scotland may actually have been OK as a 5-car if it was possible to change from the North Wales Voyager to the Trent Valley Scotland service at Crewe, thus meaning the 5-car would only really be handling traffic from Brum itself.

As for the slightly OT issue of giving Manchester to Scotland to TPE (a third-rate regional express operation), whoever did that was away with the fairies. It's as preposterous as would be giving Brum-Scotland to LM.

I similarly think Liverpool-Brum fasts should have stayed with XC but with a new build of suitable 6-7 car EMUs like Class 444s. The old hourly Crewe local would have been Northern with a Class 319 by now.

As an MK resident I do prefer the idea of a consistent Taktfahrplan, though, rather than random services to random destinations as we used to have. But I would like the connections to be properly coordinated.

 

[QueensCurve]

Agreed! The 6 minute connection at Warrington with the ATW train to Chester and North Wales being one such example. I'd struggle to think of a weekday where there hasn't been at least one missed connection. ATW never hold their services, even if 30 seconds would suffice, though with the regularity of VTWC services being delayed by a handful of minutes I can understand why. None of this is reflected in VTWC's PPM "statistics" of course, before a 5 to 8 minute delay will always disappear once the train reaches Wolverhampton.

That's another one I was going to bring up. The 6 min connection out of the Euston to Glasgow should be achievable and very convenient. It is missed as often as made. I made a study of this 2 years ago.

I understand that TOCs don't want to hold connections. Part of the issue seems to be a difference in timing policies of the two TOCs with ATW having loose timings for which recovery is possible whereas Virgin dash from station to station and then pad the arrival at final destination.

In this particular case ATW could justifably hold the connection up to a point since they would be able to recover to Chester. It might help if they could be diagrammed to use Platform 1 so as to be ready to go on the Up Helsby.

The northbound connection (arr xx:19, dep xx:27) is reliable.

Input from Virgo Intacta and ATW welcomed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think moving Manchester-Scotland to TPE was a bad idea at all. Patronage has risen since it moved from Virgin, which is part of the problem, and a 4-car 350 is a much better suited train than a Voyager running under the wires for the whole journey. The fact that Manchester-Scotland ended up as a separate service to Birmingham-Scotland is more of an issue, but that was long before TPE.

Liverpool-Birmingham was never CrossCountry, it was operated by Regional Railways NW (using 309s IIRC) before it became Central Trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think moving Manchester-Scotland to TPE was a bad idea at all. Patronage has risen since it moved from Virgin

Patronage has risen because frequency has been increased from a few a day to hourly, and because patronage on the railway has increased as well. Same as any other route. It to me makes sense to be part of West Coast (it was previously Virgin XC).

which is part of the problem, and a 4-car 350 is a much better suited train than a Voyager running under the wires for the whole journey.

A 4-car 350 is completely insufficient. A 6 or 7-car 444-a-like would be a good type of unit for what is an InterCity route.

Liverpool-Birmingham was never CrossCountry, it was operated by Regional Railways NW (using 309s IIRC) before it became Central Trains.

XC used to serve Liverpool-South West via Birmingham either hourly or 2-hourly (I forget), though - those were withdrawn.

 

[Senex]

I don't think moving Manchester-Scotland to TPE was a bad idea at all. Patronage has risen since it moved from Virgin, which is part of the problem, and a 4-car 350 is a much better suited train than a Voyager running under the wires for the whole journey. The fact that Manchester-Scotland ended up as a separate service to Birmingham-Scotland is more of an issue, but that was long before TPE.

Liverpool-Birmingham was never CrossCountry, it was operated by Regional Railways NW (using 309s IIRC) before it became Central Trains.

TPE has certainly made a great success of the Manchester-Scotland operation, which is much more than can be said of either BR or Virgin Trains. And that not just with the cheapo traffic but also by building up its first-class business market. However, a 4-car 100-mph-only outer-suburban unit (that seats very few more passengers than the inadequate 3-car 185 it replaced) is not the proper equipment for a 220-mile journey on a 125-mph (with tilt) main line. To be fair, neither is a 4-car Voyager. But then we are all now very well aware that neither the 4/5-car Voyagers nor the 3-car 185s are the right equipment for the routes they were bought for in the first place, let alone for any other long-distance services.

 

[adrock1976]

Snip

Liverpool-Birmingham was never CrossCountry, it was operated by Regional Railways NW (using 309s IIRC) before it became Central Trains.

Snip


XC used to serve Liverpool-South West via Birmingham either hourly or 2-hourly (I forget), though - those were withdrawn.

I remember the days of British Rail when Birmingham NS - Liverpool LS was operated by loco hauled stock under the Intercity sector. Some of these journeys would start south of Birmingham with the locos changing from diesel to electric at Birmingham.

In peace

Adam

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE has certainly made a great success of the Manchester-Scotland operation, which is much more than can be said of either BR or Virgin Trains.

That's unfair. VT did increase the frequency in their latter days of XC - I think it went up to 2-hourly from 3 tpd.

 

[The Planner]

Virgin dash from station to station and then pad the arrival at final destination.

Check Realtimetrains or similar, and find me the padding at the end, +5 on the PTT does not count.....

 

[QueensCurve]

Check Realtimetrains or similar, and find me the padding at the end, +5 on the PTT does not count.....

You've caught me out on that one!

What I do know is that the intermediate stations aren't achieved as reliably as the final destination.

I know some TOCs are bitterly opposed, but I for one would prefer [slightly] slower journeys and more reliable times to intermediate stations.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You've caught me out on that one!
What I do know is that the intermediate stations aren't achieved as reliably as the final destination.
I know some TOCs are bitterly opposed, but I for one would prefer [slightly] slower journeys and more reliable times to intermediate stations.

There's a good analysis of this problem in the June Modern Railways (p7), and mentions new technology to better track performance en route.
Alex Hynes, MD of Northern, is promoting "right time all the way" as an operating principle.

 

[All Line Rover]

Check Realtimetrains or similar, and find me the padding at the end, +5 on the PTT does not count.....

Why doesn't +5 on the PTT count? There are many connections at intermediate stations of 5 to 10 minutes, and +5 on the PTT means that regular disruption to these customers is completely ignored.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that 2tph (with perhaps peak extras to 4tph) would have been adequate for Manchester and Birmingham. My main changes to the timetable, though, would be to improve connections - in particular I'd call everything that passes through Crewe there in order to facilitate better connections. The Brum-Scotland may actually have been OK as a 5-car if it was possible to change from the North Wales Voyager to the Trent Valley Scotland service at Crewe, thus meaning the 5-car would only really be handling traffic from Brum itself.

Other than the Liverpool to London "express" train and a handful of peak time trains which cannot call at Crewe due to calling at other stations south of Crewe (e.g. Milton Keynes), only the Glasgow to London via Nuneaton trains don't call at Crewe. Looking at the timetable this would appear to be because VT don't want to shift demand from the Manchester via Wilmslow trains onto the already busy Glasgow trains. Northbound the Glasgow trains depart Euston at xx:30 and the Manchester trains depart Euston at xx:40. Southbound the Manchester trains depart Crewe at xx:29 and the Glasgow trains pass through Crewe at xx:39. However, Crewe could always be made a pick-up only (northbound) set-down only (southbound) stop on the Glasgow trains to create new connections between VT routes at Crewe (and provide a roughly half-hourly rather than hourly service between Carlisle and Crewe) while keeping Crewe to London passengers on the Manchester trains.

 

[The Planner]

Why doesn't +5 on the PTT count? There are many connections at intermediate stations of 5 to 10 minutes, and +5 on the PTT means that regular disruption to these customers is completely ignored.

Because it makes no difference to the WTT and it is only added at terminal stations as a PPM blag.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know it annoys Liverpool folk but the most crowded trains passing through Crewe, it seems to me, are the Glasgow directs.
You don't want yet more passengers on these trains by forcing a stop at Crewe.
The next frequency uplift should be a new Euston-Preston (-Blackpool/Lancaster) to relieve the Glasgows, as per the RUS.
They could also make extra stops south of Crewe, eg in the Trent Valley.
Crewe also has the Liverpools most hours and Chester/North Wales (usually a 5-car Voyager), as well as the Manchester via Wilmslow.
LM running to Preston would help too.
More stock is needed though, for any of this.

 

[The Planner]

Northbound the Glasgow trains depart Euston at xx:30 and the Manchester trains depart Euston at xx:40. Southbound the Manchester trains depart Crewe at xx:29 and the Glasgow trains pass through Crewe at xx:39. However, Crewe could always be made a pick-up only (northbound) set-down only (southbound) stop on the Glasgow trains to create new connections between VT routes at Crewe (and provide a roughly half-hourly rather than hourly service between Carlisle and Crewe) while keeping Crewe to London passengers on the Manchester trains.

Making a Crewe stop on the Glasgows will add 3 minutes into them, nails it at Rugby as it clashes with the Birmingham service. You would have to stop that for longer at Rugby and get it out just in front on the Manchester which stops at MK, very touch and go.

 

[QueensCurve]

There's a good analysis of this problem in the June Modern Railways (p7), and mentions new technology to better track performance en route.
Alex Hynes, MD of Northern, is promoting "right time all the way" as an operating principle.

I haven't read that article yet, but I would certainly endorse "right time all the way" as an operating principle. Works in Switzerland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Glasgow directs.
You don't want yet more passengers on these trains by forcing a stop at Crewe.
The next frequency uplift should be a new Euston-Preston (-Blackpool/Lancaster) to relieve the Glasgows, as per the RUS.
They could also make extra stops south of Crewe, eg in the Trent Valley.
Crewe also has the Liverpools most hours and Chester/North Wales (usually a 5-car Voyager), as well as the Manchester via Wilmslow.
LM running to Preston would help too.
More stock is needed though, for any of this.

None of this would help those of us trying to make connections at Crewe from origins North of Lancaster.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Making a Crewe stop on the Glasgows will add 3 minutes into them, nails it at Rugby as it clashes with the Birmingham service. You would have to stop that for longer at Rugby and get it out just in front on the Manchester which stops at MK, very touch and go.

To what extent could the 3 mins be reduced if the point at which the P5 road trails into the up main was increased from 20mph to 40/50/60?

Could the Birmingham service be recast to obviate the conflict?

 

[The Planner]

Might take 30 seconds off it, you are still going to need a minimum of 30 seconds to stop, 1.5 for a non open stop and up to a minute to get back up. You could move the Birmingham if it works but then you are going to have two quick EBWs and one slow as you cannot do anything with it before Rugby.

 

[nidave]

This goes to show how much HS2 is needed - trains are regularly full - so the free capacity is more than welcome.

 

[JonathanH]

This.

It was repeatedly pointed out at the time that the VHF timetable was shafting people at intermediate stations and at "less important" destinations, but neither the SRA nor Virgin seemed to give two hoots.

As it stands, the timetable is ridiculous, and has been since it was drawn up. Birmingham and Manchester do not need 3tph each- Leeds makes do with 2tph perfectly happily. Liverpool needs more than 1tph, and Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow needs more than 1tph (I'm ignoring the via Birmingham train as it's so slow).

The only saving grace of joining the London-Birmingham and Birmingham-Scotland trains is that it re-opens intermediate journey opportunities that were destroyed by VHF. And provides enough capacity to carry out these intermediate journeys, because a single Voyager on the Birmingham-Scotland trains was an untenable position.

The problem with cutting Manchester back to 2tph is the cut in service for either Stoke-on-Trent or Wilmslow. Do you run 1tph through Stoke-on-Trent, or do you remove the service to Wilmslow?

Obviously you could try to force a train to Liverpool or Preston via Stoke-on-Trent and the Alsager line but with the single track section that may cause congestion.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I shouldn't think the Northern Powerhouse brigade will contemplate service reductions to Manchester.
Leeds is in any case due to get 3tph under the ICEC franchise.
The question really is whether DfT will let ICWC build more Pendolinos for the 2017 franchise, when HS2 is just over the horizon.
They might only have a life of 10 years or so before many WC services are replaced by new stock and diverted onto HS2 at Lichfield/Crewe.
TPE's solution for running on the ECML/WCML might be key to what happens next.
Not to mention the Open Access thing.

 

[yorksrob]

With capacity improvements on the MML and reinstatement of Peak Forest - Matlock, a new InterCity route between Manchester and London could be created (providing intermediate connections to the East Midlands).

 

[Starmill]

With capacity improvements on the MML and reinstatement of Peak Forest - Matlock, a new InterCity route between Manchester and London could be created (providing intermediate connections to the East Midlands).

That would increase available capacity between Stockport and Sheffield too, because North West - East Midlands traffic wouldn't need to go via Sheffield anymore.

 

[yorksrob]

That would increase available capacity between Stockport and Sheffield too, because North West - East Midlands traffic wouldn't need to go via Sheffield anymore.

Indeed. Strategically such a link could have a positive effect on all sorts of traffic flows. The service to stations between Chesterfield and Sheffield could be improved, a path could be freed up on the Southern end of the WCML for example.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. Strategically such a link could have a positive effect on all sorts of traffic flows. The service to stations between Chesterfield and Sheffield could be improved, a path could be freed up on the Southern end of the WCML for example.

I'm not sure it would help the West Coast all that much as I doubt how time competitive such a route could be.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure it would help the West Coast all that much as I doubt how time competitive such a route could be.

Well, it would open up quite a direct route - but it would depend on how much they could speed up the MML. Also how many stops in the East Midlands it would have