WCML vs ECML

[Nottingham59]

As it stands today? it won't unless they reintroduce the work to Handsacre.

By phase 1, I'm including Handsacre.

 

[The Planner]

By phase 1, I'm including Handsacre.

Just under 4 hours.

 

[Nottingham59]

Just under 4 hours.

So no great advantage for the West Coast until Hamdsacre-Crewe gets built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So no great advantage for the West Coast until Hamdsacre-Crewe gets built.

The two aren't competing in the eyes of anyone but enthusiasts who see a product in the market of "a long train journey from London to somewhere interesting".

If you want Glasgow, you go WCML, if you want Edinburgh you go ECML.

The via Birmingham service is just a combination of Euston-Wolves and Brum-Scotland which happens to provide a bit of operational convenience (and by saving a diagram allows longer trains on Birmingham-Scotland which was previously severely overcrowded) and a very slow cheap London-Edinburgh alternative which competes more with coach and budget flights than LNER.

 

[Nottingham59]

If you want Glasgow, you go WCML, if you want Edinburgh you go ECML.

At some point, it will be faster to get from London to Edinburgh via HS2 and Carlisle. But that might have to wait until the Golborne Link gets built

EDIT: The Integrated Rail Plan (FWIW) says 228 minutes for London-Edinburgh via the Golborne Link compared to 270 minutes now. And 220 minutes for London-Glasgow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At some point, it will be faster to get from London to Edinburgh via HS2 and Carlisle. But that might have to wait until the Golborne Link gets built

If Golborne gets built, you run 2tph Euston-Scotland splitting at Carlisle, and then the WCML becomes the main Edinburgh railway and the ECML becomes secondary, a bit like the London-Scotland via Brum service which is more about budget passengers and intermediate journeys (of which there are probably more on the ECML because it's all conveniently in a straight line, whereas on the WCML it's not). But until then, "normals" don't even look at Avanti West Coast if they want to go from London to Edinburgh, nor do they look at LNER for Glasgow.

 

[Peter0124]

Newcastle to Edinburgh is actually quite a long distance by train, 124 track miles vs 91 miles as the crow flies. Probably the detour via the North Berwick coast.

 

[Strathclyder]

Hardly any tourists go to Glasgow compared with Edinburgh.

Compared to Edinburgh, obviously every other Scottish city struggles to come close (as a Glaswegian, it's a blindingly obvious reality I've come to accept). But that doesn't mean they don't exist, period. New hotels haven't been springing up in Glasgow over the last couple years for no reason (Motel One right next door to Glasgow Central being one such example). The hotel chains clearly think the demand justifies the investment.

This thread feels like two bald men fighting over a comb. Who cares if it takes 10 minutes longer one way vs the other over 350 miles.

Pretty much my views on this. Feels like an argument for the sake of an argument quite honestly. I personally would like to see more rail-based options for long-distance travel to Glasgow like Lumo, but it's more of a personal fantasy than anything actually realistic.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

If Golborne gets built, you run 2tph Euston-Scotland splitting at Carlisle, and then the WCML becomes the main Edinburgh railway and the ECML becomes secondary, a bit like the London-Scotland via Brum service which is more about budget passengers and intermediate journeys (of which there are probably more on the ECML because it's all conveniently in a straight line, whereas on the WCML it's not). But until then, "normals" don't even look at Avanti West Coast if they want to go from London to Edinburgh, nor do they look at LNER for Glasgow.

If you go via London then yes, ECML to Edinburgh, ECML to Glasgow but it gets more interesting if you're going to Glasgow from the East coast or Edinburgh from the West coast, then it is less clear when you hop across the country

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you go via London then yes, ECML to Edinburgh, ECML to Glasgow but it gets more interesting if you're going to Glasgow from the East coast or Edinburgh from the West coast, then it is less clear when you hop across the country

Yes, true, for MKC-Edinburgh you'd usually go WCML and change at Preston (or take the slow service all the way, though that opportunity will be removed once Avanti get their 807s). You can go via London too though.

 

[Peter0124]

If Golborne gets built, you run 2tph Euston-Scotland splitting at Carlisle, and then the WCML becomes the main Edinburgh railway and the ECML becomes secondary, a bit like the London-Scotland via Brum service which is more about budget passengers and intermediate journeys (of which there are probably more on the ECML because it's all conveniently in a straight line, whereas on the WCML it's not). But until then, "normals" don't even look at Avanti West Coast if they want to go from London to Edinburgh, nor do they look at LNER for Glasgow.

LNER was actually somewhat comparable with Avanti getting home (I live in a suburb just outside Glasgow).

LNER fast to Edinburgh, Scotrail to Croy and drive home rather than Avanti to Glasgow and change to head back the same way. Avanti took approx 5 hours 15 minutes from London Euston to Home, and the LNER took approx 6 hours.

When heading to London we usually take Avanti down and head back on LNER. Nice change of scenery and can cover both routes.

 

[Nottingham59]

Newcastle to Edinburgh is actually quite a long distance by train, 124 track miles vs 91 miles as the crow flies. Probably the detour via the North Berwick coast.

Yes. It comes from Edinburgh being west of Carlisle and west of Preston ....

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER was actually somewhat comparable with Avanti getting home (I live in a suburb just outside Glasgow).

LNER fast to Edinburgh, Scotrail to Croy and drive home rather than Avanti to Glasgow and change to head back the same way. Avanti took approx 5 hours 15 minutes from London Euston to Home, and the LNER took approx 6 hours.

When heading to London we usually take Avanti down and head back on LNER. Nice change of scenery and can cover both routes.

Though I think this is mostly an enthusiast's view. On Sunday I drove to Aylesbury Vale Parkway and went into Marylebone because I quite like the genteel Chiltern line and the service there was doubled due to it acting as a railhead (bus and car) for Bicester due to the main Chiltern line blockade (2tph at 4 or 5 car all day). But I would be amazed if I asked anyone from Bletchley who was not a rail enthusiast if they'd ever done that and got anything other than "er, wha?"

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just under 4 hours.

I think that presumed HS2 trains would only stop at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle, and be additional to classic services.
I suspect by the time services start, they will be integrated into one service (ie more stops in the NW, so slower journeys).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that presumed HS2 trains would only stop at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle, and be additional to classic services.
I suspect by the time services start, they will be integrated into one service (ie more stops in the NW, so slower journeys).

With Golborne 2tph fast is still the plan (with a Lancaster 200m semifast as well).

Without Golborne I believe it's 1tph at 200m to Glasgow (no Edinburgh portion), and still the Lancaster semifast. The bad news in that plan is that Oxenholme and Penrith lose London services entirely (bar possibly retention of the slow via the West Mids).

 

[mangyiscute]

With Golborne 2tph fast is still the plan (with a Lancaster 200m semifast as well).

Without Golborne I believe it's 1tph at 200m to Glasgow (no Edinburgh portion), and still the Lancaster semifast. The bad news in that plan is that Oxenholme and Penrith lose London services entirely (bar possibly retention of the slow via the West Mids).

What are the old paths on the WCML gonna be used for?

 

[dave59]

Avanti late again most of the day.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Gretna Jn all day on 19/06/2023

Train information at Gretna Jn all day on 19/06/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

Avanti late again most of the day.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Gretna Jn all day on 19/06/2023

Train information at Gretna Jn all day on 19/06/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Power issues, wasn't it? I suspect you could pick a similar day for the Peterborough-Doncaster section of the ECML and find just as many late trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What are the old paths on the WCML gonna be used for?

A complete recast, with more local services, one of the key purposes of HS2!

 

[Some guy]

Somewhat bizarre comment because that's not really the discussion here, the discussion is that the WCML should probably have a better service from Crewe to Glasgow.

And my point is that Warrington (and Preston) probably have the population to support a better service.

It still confuses me why London midland at the time never went ahead with a London to Preston service there would have been demand for it and provided direct hourly services to Trent valley stations and rugby and Milton Keynes

A complete recast, with more local services, one of the key purposes of HS2!

It’s still going to be the same problem north of Preston with freight using the same line so again will be limited to 3 trains per hour

 

[Bletchleyite]

It still confuses me why London midland at the time never went ahead with a London to Preston service there would have been demand for it and provided direct hourly services to Trent valley stations and rugby and Milton Keynes

I believe they weren't allowed to, though I half recall there was one train per day or something.

It wouldn't have made much sense, though.

It’s still going to be the same problem north of Preston with freight using the same line so again will be limited to 3 trains per hour

Not correct. If Golborne is built, the plan is 2tph fast HS2, 1tph Lancaster terminator HS2 plus the Manchester and Birmingham classic services (and the Barrow/Windermere if that counts), that's six in total. It might mean more freight going a different way but that is the long term plan in so much as there is one.

 

[WAB]

Not correct. If Golborne is built, the plan is 2tph fast HS2, 1tph Lancaster terminator HS2 plus the Manchester and Birmingham classic services (and the Barrow/Windermere if that counts), that's six in total. It might mean more freight going a different way but that is the long term plan in so much as there is one.

Yes, you could probably get a fair bit more out of the northern WCML with more loops and a requirement for the FOCs to use sufficiently powerful locomotives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, you could probably get a fair bit more out of the northern WCML with more loops and a requirement for the FOCs to use sufficiently powerful locomotives.

It does amaze me that we persist with allowing paths to be wasted by operators of underpowered freight locomotives which crawl over Shap, wasting paths like they don't matter. There should absolutely be minimum performance requirements for trains on our important mainlines. Simply using two locomotives would be a start.

 

[zwk500]

It does amaze me that we persist with allowing paths to be wasted by operators of underpowered freight locomotives which crawl over Shap, wasting paths like they don't matter. There should absolutely be minimum performance requirements for trains on our important mainlines. Simply using two locomotives would be a start.

All adds cost, and therefore FOCs claim it will make the traffic uneconomic. Given there are obvious advantages for FOCs in using better locos on electrified sections, it's a reasonable assumption that there are good reasons they're not doing so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All adds cost, and therefore FOCs claim it will make the traffic uneconomic. Given there are obvious advantages for FOCs in using better locos on electrified sections, it's a reasonable assumption that there are good reasons they're not doing so.

TBH if it's that uneconomic then there can't be that much of it, in which case put it in lorries on the M6. We can't have this nonsense clogging up one of our prime passenger mainlines.

I bet it is economic, though, and they're just whining that it'll eat a bit into the profits.

 

[zwk500]

TBH if it's that uneconomic then there can't be that much of it, in which case put it in lorries on the M6. We can't have this nonsense clogging up one of our prime passenger mainlines.

I bet it is economic, though, and they're just whining that it'll eat a bit into the profits.

Freight margins aren't massive per train. They don't have an enormous fleet of electrics so if you required every Class 4 on the WCML to use a pair of electrics from Wembley or Crewe to Mossend you would increase the costs by a fair amount. Especially if they need to do 2 loco changes on the way, requiring shunting staff on duty.
Of course, the industry and government could invest in electrification to enable freight diagrams to move to fully electric and therefore make investment in modern electric fleets worthwhile.

 

[Trainbike46]

As I understand it, the main costs the FOCs are trying to avoid by using diesel locomotives throughout is the cost of locomotive swaps. This should partly be resolved with the class 93 & 99, particularly for flows where the performance required of the locomotive on the non-electrified sections is smaller.

Further electrification of routes important to freight would also reduce this issue

 

[Bletchleyite]

Freight margins aren't massive per train. They don't have an enormous fleet of electrics so if you required every Class 4 on the WCML to use a pair of electrics from Wembley or Crewe to Mossend you would increase the costs by a fair amount. Especially if they need to do 2 loco changes on the way, requiring shunting staff on duty.
Of course, the industry and government could invest in electrification to enable freight diagrams to move to fully electric and therefore make investment in modern electric fleets worthwhile.

While I'm pro "sparks", it doesn't even need to be electrics. They could shunt on an extra 66 at Preston and take it off at Carlisle.

 

[zwk500]

While I'm pro "sparks", it doesn't even need to be electrics. They could shunt on an extra 66 at Preston and take it off at Carlisle.

They'd need people based at Preston to do that, which they don't have. The 66 would have to be attached at Crewe or Warrington, and that adds time in as the train has to dive into the yard (slow) and after 10-15 minutes to get the loco on it's missed the path and has to wait for a later slot. At Carlisle they have a similar problem of needing to crawl into Kingmoor rather than speed through to Lockerbie. Also you'd need the second loco through to Carstairs at the least.
A second 66 tied up between Crewe and Mossend is a long time tied up, when it could be hauling a second train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'd need people based at Preston to do that, which they don't have. The 66 would have to be attached at Crewe or Warrington, and that adds time in as the train has to dive into the yard (slow) and after 10-15 minutes to get the loco on it's missed the path and has to wait for a later slot. At Carlisle they have a similar problem of needing to crawl into Kingmoor rather than speed through to Lockerbie. Also you'd need the second loco through to Carstairs at the least.
A second 66 tied up between Crewe and Mossend is a long time tied up, when it could be hauling a second train.

I can see why they don't like it, but when there's a need for better passenger pathing on the north WCML it seems inexcusable that we tolerate such slow running over Shap.

Assuming Labour results in a change of fortune for HS2 and those 6 paths are needed (4 north of Lancaster - 3 x HS2 and the Manchester) then I guess they'll need to do something about it properly.