WCML services - number of WMT vs. Avanti services

[Bletchleyite]

I think that there is significant scope to reduce the number of LNWR services north of MKC, but I really don't want to derail the thread.
If you wish we can start a new thread about it.

Here it is

I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it - you could hand it to Avanti like the similar services on the GWML and ECML, but it needs to exist to serve those stations without slowing everything else down.

I think however looking at usage patterns there is actually a case for reducing the Avanti Birmingham service, not the WMT one, and instead increasing the WMT service to say 4 trains per hour. The cheaper, mainly walk-up WMT service appears to me to be a lot more popular on this relatively short journey. I certainly question the benefit of the new Avanti 110mph Birmingham semifast and lean towards the idea that that one should be a WMT service instead.

Market segmentation seems, in my view, to be rather overrated as a way of improving the railways financial position.
Railways are bulk transport systems, if we can collapse flows down to the smallest set of the largest flows possible we should encourage this.

If you don't segment the market you accept that those passengers of lesser means will choose coach or car instead.

There's even segmentation within IC operations. If you look at LNER fares the slower Edinburgh is generally 10-20 quid cheaper than the faster one (though you can to some extent cheat this using the 70 Minute Flex fare), while the Avanti Glasgow via Birmingham is cheaper than the faster direct service.

 

[A S Leib]

Increasing the WMR / non-intercity Euston to Birmingham to at least 3tph would presumably mean that an hourly Hemel Hempstead to Birmingham service would be feasible. I don't think that's a route with tonnes of demand, but out of destinations doable with existing lines, probably the most desirable change apart from maybe bringing back West London line services.

 

[HSTEd]

=

Here it is

I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it - you could hand it to Avanti like the similar services on the GWML and ECML, but it needs to exist to serve those stations without slowing everything else down.

I think however looking at usage patterns there is actually a case for reducing the Avanti Birmingham service, not the WMT one, and instead increasing the WMT service to say 4 trains per hour. The cheaper, mainly walk-up WMT service appears to me to be a lot more popular on this relatively short journey.

I guess operating the WCML more like the ECML is more of what I'm driving at. This may be personal bias because I grew up on the ECML and the complexity of operations on the WCML seems somewhat alien.
We never got a WAGN or similar service on the ECML above Peterborough, so I fundamentally always conceived of the railway as the railway.


If we maintain the current structure, I certainly agree we could make a case for cutting many of the Avanti Birmingham services in favour of a higher intensity timetable using stock optimised for the actual journey times.
Having trains with full catering facilities on a journey of 85 minutes seems somewhat silly.

OFcourse HS2 opening will gut the ultra fast market to Birmingham in any case.
I think you could probably make a case in that situation of trying to run a high intensity shuttle to Birmingham on HS2, its not as if it will be short of track capacity.
There are a lot of other claims on Birmingham Loop line capacity beyond the current long distance services after all, so if we can make room for locals we should.

If you don't segment the market you accept that those passengers of lesser means will choose coach or car instead.

I take a possibly naively optimistic view that a railway focused on volume would be able to square the circle of providing cheap(er) fares to everyone!
But perhaps I am incredibly naive on that score, if no other!

 

[A S Leib]

There's even segmentation within IC operations. If you look at LNER fares the slower Edinburgh is generally 10-20 quid cheaper than the faster one (though you can to some extent cheat this using the 70 Minute Flex fare), while the Avanti Glasgow via Birmingham is cheaper than the faster direct service.

I've noticed that in the past, although it's interesting that looking at Newcastle to King's Cross at 09:00 three weeks from today, the cheapest option is CrossCountry and Grand Central via Doncaster (£29 with a railcard), then Lumo (£34), then any of the 09:34-10:27 LNER departures (£39).

 

[JamesT]

Here it is

I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it - you could hand it to Avanti like the similar services on the GWML and ECML, but it needs to exist to serve those stations without slowing everything else down.

I think however looking at usage patterns there is actually a case for reducing the Avanti Birmingham service, not the WMT one, and instead increasing the WMT service to say 4 trains per hour. The cheaper, mainly walk-up WMT service appears to me to be a lot more popular on this relatively short journey.

On a purely selfish note, what happens to the journeys currently served by the Avanti Birmingham trains North of Birmingham then? Capacity at New Street is already at a premium, are you now going to have even more terminating trains in there? (Avanti from the North, WMT from the South)

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a purely selfish note, what happens to the journeys currently served by the Avanti Birmingham trains North of Birmingham then? Capacity at New Street is already at a premium, are you now going to have even more terminating trains in there? (Avanti from the North, WMT from the South)

Only one train per hour (the Scotland) continues north of Birmingham during the standard pattern, and that one could remain. The other two (the semifast and the fast) terminate at New St, with the exception of some peak extras and the evening services once the frequency drops (and you could have WMT continue those to Wolves too). As a minimum I do think the 110mph semifast should be a WMT service.

Don't look at this week, there are diversions via Birmingham as the Trent is shut.

 

[HSTEd]

I think, as an example, you could make an argument for running:

1. 4tph London Euston-MKC or Wolverton, first stop Watford Junction and then all stops. I could be persuaded about a stop at Harrow and Wealdstone, but I am not sure on that myself.
2. Fill the WCML fast line with an endless succession of trains, all running first stop Milton Keynes, and then switching to a more conventional pattern north of there
3. Most Birmingham fast trains would be operated as WMT-style trains with pointy ends, complete with Wolves extensions.

 

[A S Leib]

1. 4tph London Euston-MKC or Wolverton, first stop Watford Junction and then all stops. I could be persuaded about a stop at Harrow and Wealdstone, but I am not sure on that myself.
2. Fill the WCML fast line with an endless succession of trains, all running first stop Milton Keynes, and then switching to a more conventional pattern north of there

I'm unconvinced about any plan which leaves Watford Junction without any intercity services. Milton Keynes to Birmingham's 114,000 passengers per year and 51,000 from Watford Junction to Birmingham, which feels like enough to keep services there.

 

[cactustwirly]

Here it is

I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it - you could hand it to Avanti like the similar services on the GWML and ECML, but it needs to exist to serve those stations without slowing everything else down.

I think however looking at usage patterns there is actually a case for reducing the Avanti Birmingham service, not the WMT one, and instead increasing the WMT service to say 4 trains per hour. The cheaper, mainly walk-up WMT service appears to me to be a lot more popular on this relatively short journey. I certainly question the benefit of the new Avanti 110mph Birmingham semifast and lean towards the idea that that one should be a WMT service instead.



If you don't segment the market you accept that those passengers of lesser means will choose coach or car instead.

There's even segmentation within IC operations. If you look at LNER fares the slower Edinburgh is generally 10-20 quid cheaper than the faster one (though you can to some extent cheat this using the 70 Minute Flex fare), while the Avanti Glasgow via Birmingham is cheaper than the faster direct service.

The WCML is the odd one out as the commuter service goes all the way to Birmingham.
It is a stopping train from Northampton to Birmingham joined to a semi fast Northampton to London train, I guess to use the line capacity more efficiently.

 

[william.martin]

I think we need the following:

1. 1 TPH avanti Birmingham - Euston, non-stop after Coventry. (807 or 390/0)
2. 1 TPH The north - Euston VIA brum, Milton Keynes and Watford (390)
3. 1 TPH LNWR Wolverhampton - Euston semi-fast (8 car 350)
4. 2 TPH LNWR Birmingham- Euston Stopper (5 car 730)

 

[william.martin]

I think we need the following:

1. 1 TPH avanti Birmingham - Euston, non-stop after Coventry. (807 or 390/0)
2. 1 TPH The north - Euston VIA brum, Milton Keynes and Watford (390)
3. 1 TPH LNWR Wolverhampton - Euston semi-fast (8 car 350)
4. 2 TPH LNWR Birmingham- Euston Stopper (5 car 730)

Forgot to add (sorry mods)
5. LNWR Northampton- Euston Stopper

 

[JonathanH]

Forgot to add (sorry mods)
5. LNWR Northampton- Euston Stopper

Why is a Northampton to Euston stopper needed? The alternating Euston to Tring / Milton Keynes stoppers seem to be working well.

 

[william.martin]

Why is a Northampton to Euston stopper needed? The alternating Euston to Tring / Milton Keynes stoppers seem to be working well.

Good shout - I didn't think about them.

 

[RailWonderer]

Here it is

I completely disagree. A semifast long distance service is necessary whoever operates it - you could hand it to Avanti like the similar services on the GWML and ECML, but it needs to exist to serve those stations without slowing everything else down.

I think however looking at usage patterns there is actually a case for reducing the Avanti Birmingham service, not the WMT one, and instead increasing the WMT service to say 4 trains per hour. The cheaper, mainly walk-up WMT service appears to me to be a lot more popular on this relatively short journey. I certainly question the benefit of the new Avanti 110mph Birmingham semifast and lean towards the idea that that one should be a WMT service instead.



If you don't segment the market you accept that those passengers of lesser means will choose coach or car instead.

There's even segmentation within IC operations. If you look at LNER fares the slower Edinburgh is generally 10-20 quid cheaper than the faster one (though you can to some extent cheat this using the 70 Minute Flex fare), while the Avanti Glasgow via Birmingham is cheaper than the faster direct service.

If Avanti really wanted to fill up the semifast Birmingham they'd price it cheaper than their other services but still a bit higher than the LNR. When Avanti gets replaced with GBR in October 2026 they will probably realign fares that way. Why replace a Pendolino or IET with a 350? It doesn't make sense, it's all about pricing and demand.

 

[Egg Centric]

I'm unconvinced about any plan which leaves Watford Junction without any intercity services. Milton Keynes to Birmingham's 114,000 passengers per year and 51,000 from Watford Junction to Birmingham, which feels like enough to keep services there.

The sad reality is (unless you have figures to the contrary) my anecdotal experience is most of those 51,000* aren't going Avanti. (I say sad because it's a service I occasionally take and it's useful for me)


*More than that as there are some services that go further

 

[A S Leib]

The sad reality is (unless you have figures to the contrary) my anecdotal experience is most of those 51,000* aren't going Avanti. (I say sad because it's a service I occasionally take and it's useful for me)


*More than that as there are some services that go further

That's true, although I'd hope that at least to Birmingham current Avanti route fares might go down enough to be more attractive once HS2 to Curzon Street's open.

 

[cle]

I'm unconvinced about any plan which leaves Watford Junction without any intercity services. Milton Keynes to Birmingham's 114,000 passengers per year and 51,000 from Watford Junction to Birmingham, which feels like enough to keep services there.

Watford is a busy interchange - with high usage (a smidge over MKC, indeed) , and in the past with a better service, was an incredibly well-used railhead for all of Herts, Bucks and outer N/NW London. HS2 could see a return to that.

It has the most WCML service ever (LNWR locals, outers and 4tph DC lines) - and now Southern terminates there, it has to be that connection point (whereas before people could join that at other stations up to MKC) - and of course, the Flyer! So it's something of a hub already.

Also worth noting that Watford itself is growing fairly rapidly, and has a number of big employers and inbound commuting/business trips.

 

[HSTEd]

Watford is a busy interchange - with high usage (a smidge over MKC, indeed) , and in the past with a better service, was an incredibly well-used railhead for all of Herts, Bucks and outer N/NW London. HS2 could see a return to that.

A large majority of the passengers from watford are heading to London destinations though.
The first non-London destination for Watford Junction on the ODM is Birmingham New Street, at #6.

3.2 million ish journeys begin at Watford Junction, half of which end up at Euston. A huge portion of the rest are at other DC or London destinations.

 

[A S Leib]

A large majority of the passengers from watford are heading to London destinations though.
The first non-London destination for Watford Junction on the ODM is Birmingham New Street, at #6.

3.2 million ish journeys begin at Watford Junction, half of which end up at Euston. A huge portion of the rest are at other DC or London destinations.

2.7 mn start at Milton Keynes Central, of which Euston's 1.7 mn and Bletchley, Leighton Buzzard and Watford Junction are 160,000 (with the difference that Avanti services form fast Milton Keynes to Euston as well as Milton Keynes to north and Birmingham services).

 

[cle]

A large majority of the passengers from watford are heading to London destinations though.
The first non-London destination for Watford Junction on the ODM is Birmingham New Street, at #6.

3.2 million ish journeys begin at Watford Junction, half of which end up at Euston. A huge portion of the rest are at other DC or London destinations.

People travel where they have good service to, and the services reflect that. Yes, London will always be the biggest destination for all of the places we discuss.

Once upon a time, WFJ had two hourly services to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow - MKC would be alternate hours. I suspect the numbers would have looked very different then, for those places. Manchester especially.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once upon a time, WFJ had two hourly services to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow - MKC would be alternate hours. I suspect the numbers would have looked very different then, for those places. Manchester especially.

One thing WFJ is potentially good at is as an M25 Parkway. Most people are not going to be willing to go into London to go back out. It's often forgotten that most journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre. The absence of an M25 Parkway on HS2 seems to me to be a particularly significant error, and the Manchester equivalent (the airport station, replacing Stockport) strikes me as an absolute essential.

Often more board Euston trains at Stockport than Piccadilly, and they're largely rich people driving from leafy south Manchester and north Cheshire.

 

[Sorcerer]

I certainly question the benefit of the new Avanti 110mph Birmingham semifast and lean towards the idea that that one should be a WMT service instead.

I very much agree with this sentiment. The London-Birmingham semi-fast isn't that much longer or different than the Liverpool-Birmingham services and thus would be better suited for LNWR operations rather than Avanti. In future they will both fall under GBR, so in that situation I think the semi-fast should be classified as regional express or interregional rather than intercity.

 

[A S Leib]

I'm not sure if Motherwell itself is a particularly affluent area, but I'd guess that that concept's contributed to eleven of the twenty daily non-sleeper London services calling there. I'm not sure if Wakefield or Coventry (or Birmingham International?) play equivalent roles for Birmingham or Leeds nearly as much as they do as stations for Wakefield or Coventry themselves.

 

[cle]

One thing WFJ is potentially good at is as an M25 Parkway. Most people are not going to be willing to go into London to go back out. It's often forgotten that most journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre. The absence of an M25 Parkway on HS2 seems to me to be a particularly significant error, and the Manchester equivalent (the airport station, replacing Stockport) strikes me as an absolute essential.

Often more board Euston trains at Stockport than Piccadilly, and they're largely rich people driving from leafy south Manchester and north Cheshire.

Absolutely. And really Manchester has Wilmslow and to a degree Macclesfield also for the outer reaches, with even nippier journey times, well sub 2 hours. There are a lot of wealthy folks in Herts and Bucks who would need to travel to Manchester - they probably drive today sadly.

Birmingham obviously is much better served through both operators, and Chiltern covering Bucks too. But for Manchester by train, it would logically all be at Watford Junction.

And it's a good point re HS2 - which will continue to serve Stockport, Runcorn etc... but OOC is just not the same. It's Shinagawa/Ueno - not Omiya!
So hopefully this role for WFJ can emerge then.

 

[Egg Centric]

One thing WFJ is potentially good at is as an M25 Parkway.

It would depend on time of day but at popular times not really - takes too long to drive there and park up off the M25 (I'm assuming you're talking about heading south on a relatively short journey time here).

As an individual I would suggest Kings Langley, but that's not doable at scale without a massive car park being built (I don't see why that couldn't be done tbh, although it'd involve diverting a canal "tributary")

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would depend on time of day but at popular times not really - takes too long to drive there and park up off the M25 (I'm assuming you're talking about heading south on a relatively short journey time here).

No, I'm talking about people who live in well-off south Bucks, east Berks, north London etc driving there to park up and make a long distance journey to e.g. Manchester, Birmingham or even Scotland. A bit like the reverse of what a lot of people are doing parking up in Stockport. That would require the reinstatement of long distance services of course - and for HS2 require an M25 Parkway which I think was an ill advised omission. Old Oak is valuable but too far in for that role.

 

[Egg Centric]

No, I'm talking about people who live in well-off south Bucks, east Berks, north London etc driving there to park up and make a long distance journey to e.g. Manchester, Birmingham or even Scotland. A bit like the reverse of what a lot of people are doing parking up in Stockport. That would require the reinstatement of long distance services of course - and for HS2 require an M25 Parkway which I think was an ill advised omission. Old Oak is valuable but too far in for that role.

Yah that would make sense.

I wonder if there could be a proper parkway station though? Neither Watford nor Kings Langley are great at the moment for various reasons.

 

[Tobberz]

As a deeply impoverished student, the cheaper LNWR are a godsend. It is a good policy to have slow cheap, and fast expensive trains going regularly between the same places. It is curious how this will work with GBR, but I am sure that has been discussed before.

 

[AJDesiro]

I think one of the biggest advantages that this service has in being operated by Avanti rather than LNR is the fact that, (if/when the MU speeds come in) the service will make more efficient use of paths than a 110mph 350 would on the fasts, which is very important on the WCML.

As a Rugby resident I’d be rather sad to see the Avanti semifast transfer over to LNR operation. At the moment, Avanti is cheaper to Birmingham than LNR (it’s something minute like 5p, but every penny counts for some people) and quite personally I prefer to travel on the Avanti service where possible for the whole reason that I’m more likely to get a seat, and if it’s busy I can upgrade to SP, but maybe that’s just me being snobbish…

 

[Tilting007]

I think one of the biggest advantages that this service has in being operated by Avanti rather than LNR is the fact that, (if/when the MU speeds come in) the service will make more efficient use of paths than a 110mph 350 would on the fasts, which is very important on the WCML.

As a Rugby resident I’d be rather sad to see the Avanti semifast transfer over to LNR operation. At the moment, Avanti is cheaper to Birmingham than LNR (it’s something minute like 5p, but every penny counts for some people) and quite personally I prefer to travel on the Avanti service where possible for the whole reason that I’m more likely to get a seat, and if it’s busy I can upgrade to SP, but maybe that’s just me being snobbish…

MU should be introduced from September…