WCML: removal of daytime freight and tighter turnaround times

[Starmill]

35 Manchester to London: Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Rugeley, Berkhamsted

What use is a train that runs fast from Rugeley Trent Valley to Berkhamsted? Thus helpfully depriving both of services to actually nearby places e.g. Berkhamsted to Watford or Rugeley to Tamworth.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

There are a handful of things which I find bothersome such as the 1757 London Euston to Lancaster running fast from Lichfield Trent Valley to Warrington Bank Quay, with neither Stafford nor Crewe. But this probably cannot be easily remedied. Neither the 2020 Bangor to Birmingham New Street nor the 1852 Edinburgh to Birmingham New Street call at Stafford either which is a shame.

 

[Philip]

What use is a train that runs fast from Rugeley Trent Valley to Berkhamsted? Thus helpfully depriving both of services to actually nearby places e.g. Berkhamsted to Watford or Rugeley to Tamworth.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

There are a handful of things which I find bothersome such as the 1757 London Euston to Lancaster running fast from Lichfield Trent Valley to Warrington Bank Quay, with neither Stafford nor Crewe. But this probably cannot be easily remedied.

The idea is to give both Rugeley and Berkhamsted new and fast direct links to both London and Manchester (or whichever northern destination). If Rugeley isn't suitable for Pendolinos then substitute for Rugby (currently without a direct link to Manchester).

The Liverpool could add Winsford and Hemel Hempstead, the Chester could add Rugeley (if platforms too short for Pendolinos) and Bushey etc.

 

[Starmill]

The idea is to give both Rugeley and Berkhamsted new and fast direct links to both London and Manchester (or whichever northern destination). If Rugeley isn't suitable for Pendolinos then substitute for Rugby (currently without a direct link to Manchester).

It has been pointed out that both already have fast direct trains to London, quite a few times now. Why does Berkhamsted need direct trains to Manchester?

 

[Philip]

It has been pointed out that both already have fast direct trains to London, quite a few times now. Why does Berkhamsted need direct trains to Manchester?

In the case of Trent Valley stations, an Avanti service would provide a better environment for passengers than a WMT 350.

Give Berkhamsted for example a direct sub 2-hour Manchester service and I bet you'll find employment and business links between the two will quickly increase notably. You could ask the same question about why Wilmslow needs a London service and it is the same answer.

 

[najaB]

Why does Berkhamsted need direct trains to Manchester?

And more importantly, why does it need it more than the station that would lose a service?

 

[Aictos]

However, I still think Avanti should look to start serving the smaller stations more regularly; there is no reason why they can't operate in a more regional way, alongside WMT. And I mean immediately, not in the far distant HS2 future.

May I point out that Avanti services are actually InterCity type services and that there is already a operator who operates the Regional type services and they're called London NorthWestern or West Midlands Trains in the West Midlands.

As to stopping Avanti services at Tring, Berkhamsted etc which are already served well by London NorthWestern, I would say there's more call for the likes of Nuneaton and other larger towns that lost their former IC services then places that's never had one in the first place.

 

[Ianno87]

If every Avanti service added a couple of extra stops to the calling pattern, each service calling at different new stations, then it would go a long way to improving connections on the WCML; a more comfortable alternative to WMT; and new direct links to northern destinations from towns in the Trent Valley and Hertfordshire.

It also goes a long way to slowing down the key Euston-Manchester market, and also running out of Pendolinos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the case of Trent Valley stations, an Avanti service would provide a better environment for passengers than a WMT 350.

Very much a matter of opinion unless you're in 1st. I would take the 350 in Standard myself. Cheaper, too.

Give Berkhamsted for example a direct sub 2-hour Manchester service and I bet you'll find employment and business links between the two will quickly increase notably. You could ask the same question about why Wilmslow needs a London service and it is the same answer.

It won't be sub 2 hour by the time it gets there!

If you were arguing for better quality connections I would be with you all the way of course.

 

[The Planner]

Good luck stopping a Pendo at Congleton, you'll have at least 4/5 coaches hanging off the end.

 

[Philip]

Local door arrangement can be used for shorter platforms, with an announcement that some carriages won't have doors opening. I'm sure Congleton was served in the 2000s.

Adding a couple of extra calls is hardly going to increase journey times dramatically; 5-10 minutes at the most and it'll still see journey times in line with where they were 15 years ago. The long distance market is still strong but not as strong as it was 10-15 years ago, so a slight journey time increase isn't going to cause much trouble and this will be outweighed by better 'point of origin-mid journey destinations' connections.

 

[zwk500]

Give Berkhamsted for example a direct sub 2-hour Manchester service and I bet you'll find employment and business links between the two will quickly increase notably.

You really, really won't. All you'll do is provide a marginally more convenient service for the handful of football fans in Berkhamsted that support either Manchester club.

You could ask the same question about why Wilmslow needs a London service and it is the same answer.

London is one of the top 3/4 cities in the world for connections and business. It also has a massive cultural scene and lots of recreational retail. It also just happens to be the capital of the country, with all the government departments and politicians based there. I suspect a large proportion of Manchester-based businesses have regular reason to send people down to London, probably at a relatively senior level. Lots of those people live in around that area of Cheshire, precisely because it has good connections to both Manchester and London.

Most people who live in Berkhamsted will work in either MK, Watford or London. Those are the places you want to make more accessible by train. Slowing down a Manchester service to stop at Berkhamsted is a ginormous net loss to passengers.

Local door arrangement can be used for shorter platforms, with an announcement that some carriages won't have doors opening.

On a Pendo? You'll have a dwell time of 10 minutes if half the doors are out of use, for an economic passenger loading.

Adding a couple of extra calls is hardly going to increase journey times dramatically; 5-10 minutes at the most and it'll still see journey times in line with where they were 15 years ago. The long distance market is still strong but not as strong as it was 10-15 years ago, so a slight journey time increase isn't going to cause much trouble and this will be outweighed by better 'point of origin-mid journey destinations' connections.

10 minutes is more than 3 paths in some places. Put the stop in the wrong place and you are chucking capacity out the window like you're bailing a sinking ship. Put in the stops you're suggesting (Berkhamsted, Congleton) and the problem is amplified.

 

[Aictos]

Local door arrangement can be used for shorter platforms, with an announcement that some carriages won't have doors opening. I'm sure Congleton was served in the 2000s.

Adding a couple of extra calls is hardly going to increase journey times dramatically; 5-10 minutes at the most and it'll still see journey times in line with where they were 15 years ago. The long distance market is still strong but not as strong as it was 10-15 years ago, so a slight journey time increase isn't going to cause much trouble and this will be outweighed by better 'point of origin-mid journey destinations' connections.

Congleton was served by Virgin Cross Country at one point prior to Operation Princess but that was a different company not to mention they never used Class 390s.

Add to the fact that you insist that extra calls on the IC services won't make much difference despite others explaining that your proposals are unworkable and why, could you not go back and do some research first?

 

[Neptune]

What is the obsession on this forum with stopping services at places which cause a penalty for the majority of users for a, what I suspect, unsubstantiated and certainly marginal market and in this case at an even higher cost by effectively trying to kill freight traffic off (which these proposals would do).

All ideas have been rebuffed with good reason by people who understand the industry yet the poor old dead horse is being continually flogged. Sometimes you just have to put your hands up and say ok fair enough it won’t work or admit it’s a bad idea.

Plans are in place for a second Liverpool service, HS2 is happening whether you like it or not and no, I don’t think there’s a mass untapped market from Berkhamstead to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Local door arrangement can be used for shorter platforms, with an announcement that some carriages won't have doors opening. I'm sure Congleton was served in the 2000s.

Adding a couple of extra calls is hardly going to increase journey times dramatically; 5-10 minutes at the most and it'll still see journey times in line with where they were 15 years ago. The long distance market is still strong but not as strong as it was 10-15 years ago, so a slight journey time increase isn't going to cause much trouble and this will be outweighed by better 'point of origin-mid journey destinations' connections.

Economically the impact of that 10-15 minute increase is massive. It will also get to the point where it actually causes people to not make the journey.

 

[Bald Rick]

If every Avanti service added a couple of extra stops to the calling pattern, each service calling at different new stations, then it would go a long way to improving connections on the WCML; a more comfortable alternative to WMT; and new direct links to northern destinations from towns in the Trent Valley and Hertfordshire.

The number of passengers gained for such a change to the calling pattern would be more than offset by the loss of passengers on the London - Manchester flow.

Adding a couple of extra calls is hardly going to increase journey times dramatically; 5-10 minutes at the most

5 minutes per stop. Each minute is worth millions of pounds in annual revenue.

so a slight journey time increase isn't going to cause much trouble and this will be outweighed by better 'point of origin-mid journey destinations' connections.

It will cause a whole lot load of trouble:

1) a complete recast of the WCML timetable (the last one took 3 years to prepare and deliver)
2) not enough rolling stock, add 10 minutes into London - Manchester and you will need another 2 units in the cycle - which services are you going to remove to make that up?
3) as above, whilst a handful of people will get better connections, 99% of passengers will have a longer journey time.


To pick up the point about, for example, stopping a Manchester service at Berkhamstead and you will see economic links between the two pick up. Why Berko and not, say, Watford, or Leighton Buzzard, or Northampton, all of which are bigger? How would you demonstrate which one deserves the link?

Then compare to MK, which has had an hourly fast service to Manchester for 12 years. MK is more than 10 times the size of Berko, and picks up the connections for Manchester for all passengers between Northampton and Watford. MK also has some substantial office accommodation and is a destination as well as an origin. Berko has none of this. The Manchester - MK flow is, frankly, quite small, and a fair bit of it is NR employees travelling between the two big offices at each end. It’s reasonable to assume that a Berko - Manchester flow would be rather less than a twentieth of ‘quite small’. We’re talking, at most, of a 100 people a week, most trains would have no passengers making the trip. For those 100/week, you would be happy to sacrifice the journey time of several million people a year, and tens of millions of revenue? I’m afraid it is madness at an economic and societal level.

 

[Starmill]

In the case of Trent Valley stations, an Avanti service would provide a better environment for passengers than a WMT 350.

Says who? I personally prefer the 350 environment. Also even if there were clear evidence that Avanti is a "better environment", you're going to tear up your entire market just for that? For a very small number of people?

 

[Bald Rick]

In the case of Trent Valley stations, an Avanti service would provide a better environment for passengers than a WMT 350.

Wouldn’t it be better to just, err, replace the 350s with something better? Like what is happening?

 

[Philip]

Ok, so perhaps even Berkhamsted isn't the right example, or Leighton Buzzard or Apsley... Berkhamsted would provide good canal walks along with many pubs I will add though...

However, from my own working experience, I can tell you that a good number of passengers weren't happy that direct Watford links were cut from the Manchester services in 2009. I believe there is a stronger case to reintroduce Watford to the regular stopping pattern.

Why does it cost millions extending the journey time by mere minutes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does it cost millions extending the journey time by mere minutes?

Because the WCML is full. Hence HS2.

Post HS2 is the time to reintroduce these stops. Indeed, improving the classic line service is one of the big arguments for HS2 - saving 5 minutes off a London-Brum trip is really very little to do with it. I've long thought HS2 should be called something like "the West Coast Main Line Capacity Project" - doesn't sound sexy, but more people might support it if they understood what it was for.

 

[zwk500]

Ok, so perhaps even Berkhamsted isn't the right example, or Leighton Buzzard or Apsley... Berkhamsted would provide good canal walks along with many pubs I will add though...

Because so many people will travel 2h on a train for a canalside walk and pub lunch...

However, from my own working experience, I can tell you that a good number of passengers weren't happy that direct Watford links were cut from the Manchester services in 2009. I believe there is a stronger case to reintroduce Watford to the regular stopping pattern.

If this is the case, why did you only suggest 1tph calling at Watford?

:15 Manchester to London: Stockport, Stoke, Tamworth, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction

:35 Manchester to London: Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Rugeley, Berkhamsted

:55 Manchester to London: Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, Lichfield, Nuneaton

I'd agree with you that with HS2 Watford has a very good case for being reintroduced on Birmingham and Manchester trains, but you seem to be suggesting something rather different each post.

Personally I'd have the :15 calling Rugby instead of MK (but keep the Watford Stop), the :35 calling Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Nuneaton, MK and the :55 calling Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Watford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I'd have the :15 calling Rugby instead of MK (but keep the Watford Stop), the :35 calling Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Nuneaton, MK and the :55 calling Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Watford.

Remove the Manchester service entirely from the fastest-growing town in the UK which will double in size in the time up to the full opening of HS2? An absolute nonsense idea.

Post HS2 all fast WCML services will need to stop at MKC (I'd stop them all at Watford and Rugby too, though I understand the plan is half Rugby and half Watford). Pre HS2 there is no need to mess with it, other than to potentially reduce south WCML commuter services (fewer but longer trains = more punctual) if there is a reduction in commuter demand.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does it cost millions extending the journey time by mere minutes?

The revenue benefit of each minute in journey is £millions each year. I won’t say how many. But suffice to say tha the rail industry spent £200m remodelling Rugby to save one minute, and that had a good case.

The cost disbenefit of each extra minute journey time is also £millions. Extra crew costs - an extra 10 minutes on every Manchester train would mean about an extra 6-8 Drivers, 6-8 senior conductors and 12-15 on board staff. That’s £2m a year. And extra rolling stock as above. 2 extra units in the Manchester cycle would cost about £30m, plus servicing, maintenance, etc.

 

[jfollows]

Local door arrangement can be used for shorter platforms, with an announcement that some carriages won't have doors opening. I'm sure Congleton was served in the 2000s.

I don't know when the Congleton call ceased, but in 1977
1A17 07:38 Piccadilly to Euston called at 08a09, the stop added 4.5 minutes to the schedule
1H21 07:55 Euston to Piccadilly called at 19a55, the stop added 2.5 minutes to the schedule (however I don't believe this)

Note: a - arrives 1 minute earlier

Macclesfield was my local station at the time, and I used these services occasionally. I don't recall how well patronised the Congleton call was, but it made sense then to have one service a day to/from London from there I think.

 

[CW2]

Thus far I've maintained a dignified (?) silence on this topic, but it has got to the point where I can resist no longer.

My background is that I was heavily involved in both the infrastructure planning and timetable development of the West Coast Route Modernisation. Some key parts of the design exist because of ideas I had, arguments I put forward, and designs I helped to develop. Once WCRM had reached its natural conclusion I moved on to HS2, where I was in the first 10 people in that project, and worked on route development, timetabling, and many public consultation events, before taking early retirement.

The West Coast timetable - as stated above - took a small team of people about 3 years to develop from scratch, dealing with an ever-changing infrastructure and linespeed profile, and a "benevolent tyrant" at the DfT in the person of Stuart Baker, who oversaw much of the work from the Government's viewpoint. When you make trains run faster, journey times become shorter, and more people are attracted to rail. That generates more revenue. Thus improving a railway can be largely self-financing. Conversely, if you slow the trains down (e.g. by inserting additional stops) then revenue is decreased, because the extended journey times make rail less attractive. As explained already, increasing the journey time can also result in additional sets being required. The existing London - Manchester trains have turnround times of around 20 minutes at each end of the journey. Each additional stop will cost you 4 - 5 minutes in time loss decelerating + dwell time + time loss accelerating back to line speed. The turnround times are currently adequate, with a small allowance to absorb any late running. Add any additional stops, and you are almost immediately into requiring additional sets in the circuit - and you may also need to build additional platforms to accommodate them. (Oh, but hang on, Euston is having its platform numbers reduced by HS2 works ...)

You can't simply suggest adding another stop without considering the effect on other services on the route. For example the (pre-COVID) WCML timetable had standard hour departures from Euston at 00 to Manchester, 03 to Birmingham, 07 to Liverpool, and 10 to Chester / North Wales in the first quarter of the hour. The stopping patterns on the WCML for each of those trains was arranged to minimise interaction between them.

So let's try adding a Watford Junction stop to the xx:00 to Manchester. What are the effects? Well, the xx03 to Birmingham will take a hit of about 3 minutes, followed by the xx07 to Liverpool which might take 2 minutes, and the xx10 to Chester might catch 1 - 2 minutes. The Liverpool is now following hard behind the Birmingham, so when that slows to turn in for Rugby, the Liverpool will catch another minute or two there. Already we are into an annual revenue loss of many millions of pounds, just through squandering time in poor timetabling (i.e. adding at Watford stop into a Manchester train where it couldn't fit). The West Midlands trains are (or were) flighted 3 minutes behind the Manchester trains specifically because they were both at clockface 20-minute interval departures from Euston, and that was the only way you could fit in all the services required by DfT and Virgin (remembering the history of the former Virgin / Railtrack deal which brought Railtrack to its knees). Remember there are fast line EMU departures for London MIdland to fit in too.

There will be a need for an entire rewrite of the WCML timetable once HS2 opens - or possibly several such, dependent upon the staging. Please let us not pretend that we can randomly insert additional stops in the timetable in the meantime without at least understanding the consequences and timescales involved - and above all the costs.

So if you want to propose to make additional stops on any WCML services - either in the current COVID timetable or longer term (assuming some semblance of a return to normality) then please go right ahead. However I urge you to do your homework first. How will delaying a specific train affect its interactions with other trains on the same route? Will the disbenefit of a longer journey time for all those passengers already on board be counterbalanced by the additional passengers benefiting from the extra stop? How will the terminal turnround times and platforming arrangements be affected? Will the revised path introduce any additional junction conflicts?

Thank you for your patience in reading this diatribe, and I beg forgiveness for any offence caused.

 

[jfollows]

I agree with CW2, but there have been tweaks to the timetable - the most major to add a Crewe stop to the London-Liverpool services (with a couple of exceptions). Lichfield and Tamworth to the 07:55 up from Manchester and 18:40 down from London. But clearly more radical changes can't be made to the current timetable.

The up Liverpool stop at Crewe often then delays the up Manchester service behind it at Stafford, which has come from Wilmslow so I'm on it sometimes. There appears to be enough recovery time in the up schedules to accommodate this delay, in general. It's clearly not simple just to add stops. The down Liverpool stop at Crewe doesn't affect me, but quite probably has some other negative effect on a different service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

This has been done to a point. The 1040 Glasgow Central to London Euston and 1210 London Euston to Chester gained a gained a Rugby call a couple of years ago, the 1030 London Euston to Glasgow Central gained a Lancaster call, the 1520 from London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly gained a Macclesfield call, the 0836 London Euston to Blackpool North and 1303 and 1502 Blackpool North to London Euston gain Crewe calls if/when reinstated, and the 1943 London Euston to Crewe via Birmingham New Street gained a Stoke-on-Trent call. The 1846 London Euston to Blackpool North (Fridays only) gained a Milton Keynes Central call. They also began operating a new 0610 Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly. Motherwell also gained some evening calls. Realistically, this sort of thing is the most you can ask for. They may even still be going ahead serving Llandudno, Walsall and Gobowen, as well as obviously they introduced Blackpool and Shrewsbury a few years ago now. They do in fact offer rather a lot to the short distance market.

Also other minor tweaks
The 07:55 Manchester to Euston gained calls at Lichfield and Tamworth
The 18:40 Euston to Manchester gained calls at Tamworth and Lichfield
The 19:40 Euston to Manchester gained a call at Crewe (this was very early on, perhaps 1 year in, in the original timetable it called at Stafford but not at Crewe)
The 07:10 Crewe to Manchester additional operated (not the 06:10 which was there from the start) on a pedantic point

 

[Starmill]

The 07:10 Crewe to Manchester additional operated (not the 06:10 which was there from the start) on a pedantic point

Ah of course thank you. I think that might actually be the second time you've pointed that one out to me haha!

No doubt there have been a number of other extra stops made here and there that neither of us have yet mentioned.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree with CW2, but there have been tweaks to the timetable - the most major to add a Crewe stop to the London-Liverpool services (with a couple of exceptions). Lichfield and Tamworth to the 07:55 up from Manchester and 18:40 down from London. But clearly more radical changes can't be made to the current timetable.

The up Liverpool stop at Crewe often then delays the up Manchester service behind it at Stafford, which has come from Wilmslow so I'm on it sometimes. There appears to be enough recovery time in the up schedules to accommodate this delay, in general. It's clearly not simple just to add stops. The down Liverpool stop at Crewe doesn't affect me, but quite probably has some other negative effect on a different service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==


Also other minor tweaks
The 07:55 Manchester to Euston gained calls at Lichfield and Tamworth
The 18:40 Euston to Manchester gained calls at Tamworth and Lichfield
The 19:40 Euston to Manchester gained a call at Crewe (this was very early on, perhaps 1 year in, in the original timetable it called at Stafford but not at Crewe)
The 07:10 Crewe to Manchester additional operated (not the 06:10 which was there from the start) on a pedantic point

But all such tweaks are very carefully considered for their effect on the overall timetable - they must respect the structure rather than change the structure of the timetable.

The biggest changes are the LM 110mph paths (made possible through a rolling stock change), and the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland service (which switched Watford and MK calls between trains in the Up direction - a case of something that happened to work within the existing structure rather than something that was incompatible with it)

No doubt there's been a whole host of other stuff that Virgin/Avanti/LM/LNWR have looked at over the last 12 years that didn't make the cut because it doesn't fit the rest of the timetable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

Ah of course thank you. I think that might actually be the second time you've pointed that one out to me haha!

No doubt there have been a number of other extra stops made here and there that neither of us have yet mentioned.

The 0807 Euston-Liverpool gained an MK stop, but that's possible because the 0810 Euston-North Wales also stops at MK

 

[Starmill]

The 0807 Euston-Liverpool gained an MK stop, but that's possible because the 0810 Euston-North Wales also stops at MK

It's almost as if Avanti West Coast, and Virgin Trains before them, have looked to fit in extra stops over time at places wherever there might conceivably be scope for growth, without tanking their existing long-distance market...

They've even held onto their handful of Lockerbie and Northampton stops, and were able to include Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's almost as if Avanti West Coast, and Virgin Trains before them, have looked to fit in extra stops over time at places wherever there might conceivably be scope for growth, without tanking their existing long-distance market...

They've even held onto their handful of Lockerbie and Northampton stops, and were able to include Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde.

Yes, it’s almost as if they have people who study the markets and demand in detail, and work out how to amend the timetable to provide maximum benefit where it can be delivered

 

[6Gman]

I'm not sure why Nantwich is being compared, as it is not on the WCML and not relevant. Perhaps Atherstone and Tring are the wrong examples though looking at the populations.

Nantwich is being compared to illustrate your inconsistency. You dismiss a place of 18,000 people as lucky to retain its station but want a place of 11,000 to gain a better service at the expense of much larger places.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

Good luck stopping a Pendo at Congleton, you'll have at least 4/5 coaches hanging off the end.

Same at Winsford, though probably more like 6 or 7. On a double track section where you want to clear the section asap