The train service reuquirement allows a ten percent reduction in the daily number of stops (or one stop if there are less then ten) but no overall weekly reduction.Today -10% total of services but with quite specific minimum daily service requirements.
iPod... But yeah you're right.Rugby Monday-Friday there's 2tpd to Preston (3 on Friday), with one extended to Glasgow. In the return direction there's 2tpd from Preston (1 starts back from Glasgow in the Olympics and from September). Then there's the services on the Chester, Liverpool and Manchester routes too. I do feel Rugby could be better served though.
(Was it really that hard to check the timetable online in order to post a definite answer?)
But where will they go to northwards? If it's Birmingham then there's already the xx03 VT from Euston. If it's Crewe via all shacks then it isn't useful. A more regular stop at Rugby would make Coventry and Northampton from the north, as well as Rugby itself, more attractive propositions.Rugby will get faster trains if the 110mph LMs come off.
Northbound at xx03 ish would fill the gap between xx54 and xx25. Southbound its path is to leave MKC at xx13 so would need to leave NMP around xx56 - there is a LM xx50 and xx05 so perhaps not the best timings in that direction.I'd like to see the Southern service extended north, maybe Northampton. I've used them and they seem well used.
Ahhh maybe not then, it's surprising how well used they are though. Maybe a joint service between SN and LM could combine between Brighton and Birmingham. That might be more feasible.Northbound at xx03 ish would fill the gap between xx54 and xx25. Southbound its path is to leave MKC at xx13 so would need to leave NMP around xx56 - there is a LM xx50 and xx05 so perhaps not the best timings in that direction.
What would be the advantage over the existing Birmingham - Glasgow / Glasgow - Mallaig services?
The through market is minimal - trains on the West Highland are generally 156 or 158 units compared to Voyagers south of GlasgowIt's all in one so there's no need to change
How?[*]The service would skip Glasgow and go straight to Edinburgh Waverley and that would cut journey times
And no-one would care.[*]It would showcase the teamwork between ToCs
- True, but at a massive time penalty as shown here it may be worth changing to save yourself hours!It's all in one so there's no need to change
- Indeed, quite a few Birmingham-Scotland trains are now Pendolinos.The first leg doesn't operate as Voyager
- How to hell would it join to a Liverpool service at Crewe then? What do you propose to do to get this train from Edinburgh-Fort William too? 57 haulage?Well really it's a Pendo as it's running from London, but Brum may work
- Via Edinburgh would add the best part of 45-90mins onto a journey to the West Highlands in lieu of via GlasgowThe service would skip Glasgow and go straight to Edinburgh Waverley and that would cut journey times
- True, but enough I suspect to detract from a 10 min walk across Glasgow or a change at Queen St ex-EDB.New connections in general
- As is demonstrated at quite a few points already (ticket acceptance and joint TPE / NT, SR / NT and SE / FCC working to name but a few)It would showcase the teamwork between ToCs
Seriously? What a pathetic reason :roll:The WCML could do with some shinier and better-looking stock (all the stock is too dark and dismal for me ATM
By running all the way over to Edinburgh, and then back all the way to the west to join the West Highland Line journey times would probably be longer than they are with a change (and cross-city interchange) in Glasgow at present.[*]The service would skip Glasgow and go straight to Edinburgh Waverley and that would cut journey times
Trains on the West Highland are solely 156s; 158s aren't gauge cleared for the route.The through market is minimal - trains on the West Highland are generally 156 or 158 units compared to Voyagers south of Glasgow
As NSE shows here:Has anyone ever thought of a full-on dual TOC operation?
Everyone and their mother has already realised that a link between LM and SN would be feasible on this route. But should one or the other fall under the control of someone other than Govia, unless an arrangement such as that of NT and SR on Newcastle to Glasgow applies (which proves that such arrangements do already exist) then it would be far harder to implement. Any other option would fall foul of the same problem.Maybe a joint service between SN and LM could combine between Brighton and Birmingham.
Now that is harshIsn't it past your bedtime Tez?
Of course you are. Not so long ago you were one of the main protagonistsI'm all for enthusiastic "fantasy" ideas, but there has to be a time and a place for these things