What to do about the WCML early finish from London to Manchester/Liverpool

[hkstudent]

It’s really early finish by Avanti to Manchester/ Liverpool at around 2200-2230 while not restoring any post 2300 departures; which compare to ECML do have a late 2345 service to Leeds.

I am thinking since Caledonian Lowlander leave Euston at 2345, and call at Crewe and Preston. Would it be best to maximise the capacity usage of seated portion to divert via Manchester Piccadilly/Oxford Road, and only release reservation from London to Manchester about 3-7 days to allow any late passengers to catch while not impacting Scottish customers?

 

[JonathanH]

It’s really early finish by Avanti to Manchester/ Liverpool at around 2200-2230 while not restoring any post 2300 departures; which compare to ECML do have a late 2345 service to Leeds.

2330 to Leeds.

The 2330 only really runs to balance the stock, as historically there was a need to get the HST back north to Neville Hill. It would be interesting to know whether it is really justified, but I guess a bit difficult to remove it.

I am thinking since Caledonian Lowlander leave Euston at 2345, and call at Crewe and Preston.

The Lowlander departs Euston at 2350, stops at Watford Junction, and next at Carlisle. Engineering work sometimes sends it via alternative routes.

Would it be best to maximise the capacity usage of seated portion to divert via Manchester Piccadilly/Oxford Road, and only release reservation from London to Manchester about 3-7 days to allow any late passengers to catch while not impacting Scottish customers?

No. There are 31 seats. It is designed for people travelling to Scotland, who want to rest overnight. That doesn't fit well with passengers who are going to bed on arrival in Manchester in the early hours, and may stay up chatting on the way back from a night out.

I'm not sure how this would help Liverpool.

Late night travel is really best done by coach, which doesn't have to worry about engineering work. There are well timed late evening coaches from London to many destinations.

 

[Watershed]

It's pathetically early compared to other cities a similar distance and time from London.

Last train to Bristol - 23:32. Derby - 00:15 currently, albeit that's removed at the timetable change but you will still have the 23:05. Norwich - 23:30. Even if you choose some places further afield, you have 22:48 for Swansea and 22:32 for Sheffield. All still later than 22:00/03.

There used to be a 23:00 departure to Manchester, but it's still not been reinstated since the pandemic. The new 22:00 to Liverpool is a fair amount later than the pre-Covid 21:07, but that's still not brilliant.

There's also never really been an adequate explanation for why the WCML runs as a frustratingly slow two track railway for so many more hours a week than other comparable lines. I suppose it's a sort of Cinderella line.

 

[irish_rail]

To add some perspective, Plymouth, last train from London after the May timetable change is 2104. Similar distance from London as Liverpool. OK there is the sleeper but that doesn't arrive until 0530ish.

 

[JonathanH]

There's also never really been an adequate explanation for why the WCML runs as a frustratingly slow two track railway for so many more hours a week than other comparable lines. I suppose it's a sort of Cinderella line.

Isn't the explanation that it has fewer weekend closures than other routes because of the traffic intensity so it needs more engineering access during the week?

What is more disappointing is that they need to make all 80-odd miles from Euston to Rugby two track railway every weeknight rather than having trains switch between the lines.

 

[Watershed]

To add some perspective, Plymouth, last train from London after the May timetable change is 2104. Similar distance from London as Liverpool. OK there is the sleeper but that doesn't arrive until 0530ish.

London to Liverpool is 30 miles and at least an hour closer to London, but yes. The abolition of the 22:04 is very disappointing, albeit there remains a connection at Bristol as far as Exeter.

Isn't the explanation that it has fewer weekend closures than other routes because of the traffic intensity so it needs more engineering access during the week?

What is more disappointing is that they need to make all 80-odd miles from Euston to Rugby two track railway every weeknight rather than having trains switch between the lines.

Fewer weekend closures? Certainly doesn't seem like it. There's also engineering works somewhere on the route virtually every Bank Holiday weekend, often necessitating long diversions or replacement buses.

But yes, the most disappointing thing is how it defaults to a two track railway after 22:00 for 80 miles, every night of the week, every week of the year - rather than just on those days and sections where they actually intend to undertake work.

 

[tbtc]

There's also never really been an adequate explanation for why the WCML runs as a frustratingly slow two track railway for so many more hours a week than other comparable lines. I suppose it's a sort of Cinderella line.

Far from a Cinderella line; the WCML is the only main route that is four track for a significant distance out of London

Given the obvious bottlenecks like Digswell Viaduct on other lines, i don’t think the WCML does too badly

The question should really be about whether these long distance late night services on various main lines are busy enough to encourage more, or are just historic legacies/ stock balancing moves

 

[JonathanH]

Far from a Cinderella line; the WCML is the only main route that is four track for a significant distance out of London

Yes. The issue as I see it is a lack of somewhere to overtake when there is two track railway.

It would be better if it was planned around keeping one of the intermediate stretches as four-track operation each night, with that stretch altering depending on the work required, although I appreciate it is difficult to set up a timetable on that basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s really early finish by Avanti to Manchester/ Liverpool at around 2200-2230 while not restoring any post 2300 departures; which compare to ECML do have a late 2345 service to Leeds.

I am thinking since Caledonian Lowlander leave Euston at 2345, and call at Crewe and Preston. Would it be best to maximise the capacity usage of seated portion to divert via Manchester Piccadilly/Oxford Road, and only release reservation from London to Manchester about 3-7 days to allow any late passengers to catch while not impacting Scottish customers?

Realistically probably nothing needs to be done. They were very lightly used, with an awkward arrival time back (0200 or later) and not quite late enough to take in a show first and be sure of getting there. I have used both the last Brum and Manc back to MKC on a number of occasions and Coach A to myself was the norm.

There are overnight coach services for anyone who's really stuck.

The one day when these really might be useful - Saturday - the WCML closes down really early!

But yes, the most disappointing thing is how it defaults to a two track railway after 22:00 for 80 miles, every night of the week, every week of the year - rather than just on those days and sections where they actually intend to undertake work.

Not only that, but with a timetable that has the IC trains take an hour to Milton Keynes Central sitting behind a stopper, rather than thinking about it properly and implementing a flighted timetable that allows that to be reduced. Obviously as they're timed to allow slow line running it wouldn't be the usual 30 minutes, but 45 should be possible. The "Takt" breaks in the late evening anyway so there's no real need to worry about that.

 

[yorksrob]

Late night travel is really best done by coach, which doesn't have to worry about engineering work. There are well timed late evening coaches from London to many destinations.

A very defeatist attitude for the railway industry.

In reality there are enough diversionary routes/multiple track between London and the North west to enable services to go around engineering works most of the time.

 

[JonathanH]

A very defeatist attitude for the railway industry.

A very insular attitude within the transport industry.

 

[The Planner]

Fewer weekend closures? Certainly doesn't seem like it. There's also engineering works somewhere on the route virtually every Bank Holiday weekend, often necessitating long diversions or replacement buses.

But yes, the most disappointing thing is how it defaults to a two track railway after 22:00 for 80 miles, every night of the week, every week of the year - rather than just on those days and sections where they actually intend to undertake work.

The WCML south of Hanslope doesn't have the luxury of a proper 10 foot for a lot of it, so if any middle line work needs doing you are disruptive. If people were happy to drop to planning a new STP plan every night based on the blocks required then I have no doubt something could be done, but neither NR or TOC is likely to want to do that.

 

[A0]

Far from a Cinderella line; the WCML is the only main route that is four track for a significant distance out of London

Given the obvious bottlenecks like Digswell Viaduct on other lines, i don’t think the WCML does too badly

The question should really be about whether these long distance late night services on various main lines are busy enough to encourage more, or are just historic legacies/ stock balancing moves

Bit in bold - not sure that's true - the ECML is technically 4 track from London - Huntingdon with 2 tracks via Hertford, that's comparable with the WCML which is 4 track London - Rugby with 2 tracks via Northampton.

If anything the Midland Mainline is probably better than either being 4 track from Kentish Town to Glendon Junction - though the final approach to St Pancras is 2 track. IIRC historically the Midland 4 track from London - Glendon Junction was the longest continuous 4 track stretch in the UK.

 

[Watershed]

Far from a Cinderella line; the WCML is the only main route that is four track for a significant distance out of London

That's cold comfort given that it runs as a two track railway for nearly half of all the hours in the week. Most of the other lines with only two tracks are open for far longer.

Given the obvious bottlenecks like Digswell Viaduct on other lines, i don’t think the WCML does too badly

The ECML doesn't have the nonsense of express intercity services trundling behind stoppers on the Slow Line after 22:00 and before midday on Sundays. So despite its bottlenecks, it has a better service in many respects.

The question should really be about whether these long distance late night services on various main lines are busy enough to encourage more, or are just historic legacies/ stock balancing moves

If they were well advertised and consistent enough, I'm sure they would attract a decent loading. Hotels are expensive - being able to save on the cost of one can make a trip to somewhere much more affordable.

Yes. The issue as I see it is a lack of somewhere to overtake when there is two track railway.

It would be better if it was planned around keeping one of the intermediate stretches as four-track operation each night, with that stretch altering depending on the work required, although I appreciate it is difficult to set up a timetable on that basis.

Precisely. But such common sense approaches - which are adopted elsewhere - are seemingly put in the "too much effort" box.

The one day when these really might be useful - Saturday - the WCML closes down really early!

Indeed. Again, no other mainline shuts so early on a Saturday. The irony being that the busiest section, as far as Milton Keynes/Northampton, is open until the early hours of Sunday morning!

Not only that, but with a timetable that has the IC trains take an hour to Milton Keynes Central sitting behind a stopper, rather than thinking about it properly and implementing a flighted timetable that allows that to be reduced. Obviously as they're timed to allow slow line running it wouldn't be the usual 30 minutes, but 45 should be possible. The "Takt" breaks in the late evening anyway so there's no real need to worry about that.

Even with proper flighting, it'd be difficult to totally avoid the trundling. Really it would need for the two track working to either start late enough that you can get away with only running (say) 2tph all stations to Milton Keynes, or to only take shorter possessions (e.g. Wembley to Watford, Watford to Ledburn) so that it's not as big of a constraint.

The southern WCML has the benefit of all its slow <-> fast crossovers being double lead, yet despite being eminently suited to this sort of situation, they see very little use.

The WCML south of Hanslope doesn't have the luxury of a proper 10 foot for a lot of it, so if any middle line work needs doing you are disruptive. If people were happy to drop to planning a new STP plan every night based on the blocks required then I have no doubt something could be done, but neither NR or TOC is likely to want to do that.

Of course - it's too much work. It's easier just to have a consistently rubbish timetable. It's seemingly also impossible to erect safety barriers etc. so as to overcome the narrow 10 foot. It's a defeatist, production-led attitude that just about summarises the malaise within the railway as a whole.

 

[zwk500]

Bit in bold - not sure that's true - the ECML is technically 4 track from London - Huntingdon with 2 tracks via Hertford, that's comparable with the WCML which is 4 track London - Rugby with 2 tracks via Northampton
If anything the Midland Mainline is probably better than either being 4 track from Kentish Town to Glendon Junction - though the final approach to St Pancras is 2 track. IIRC historically the Midland 4 track from London - Glendon Junction was the longest continuous 4 track stretch in the UK.

Apart from the Shugborough Bottleneck (2 miles, supplemented by Hixon and the Stour Valley) and Brinklow 3-track (8 miles, supplemented by the Stour Valley) the WCML is 4-track from Euston to Winsford, 165 miles. Brinklow is 88 miles from Euston so beats the MML even if you don't include the 3-track.
Huntingdon is 56 miles, you could stretch it to 100 miles at Stoke jn if you were pushing your luck with Huntingdon-Peterborough (9 miles 3-track, 5 miles 2-track). The MML is 4-track to Kettering at 75 miles, although if you include Corby as a relief then you can stretch the 4-track to Trowell Jn (125 miles).

EDIT: For context - the GWML is 4-track to Foxhall Jn (53mi), the SWML to Worting jn (50mi), the Brighton ML to Balcombe Tunnel Jn (30 mi, but you could include the additional 10 miles of 4-track from London Bridge), and the GEML to Shenfield (20mi)

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It seems many here are completely ignoring railfreight and its impact. For many decades the WCML has held the title of the busiest mixed-traffic railway in the world. And there's also a general rule of thumb that a third of all railfreight in the country uses the WCML at some point. Of course freight on rail is typically better than freight on roads but all those freight trains exert a lot of wear and tear on the infrastructure which leads to a higher level of maintenance being necessary. Hence the maintenance-related operating restrictions mentioned upthread.

Of course the ability to "smooth" the mix of traffic that HS2 will allow is one of the best arguments in HS2's favour. Sadly it will be many more years before it will be possible to demonstrate that improvement. But with much of the longer distance passenger traffic diverting to HS2 there will be more scope for freight workings to run in the day rather than overnight which will also allow for more productive overnight posessions without having to throttle the service in the late evening. In the meantime I think it's a case of having to grin and bear it.

 

[HS2isgood]

Probably it's viable to have a 2303 to Manchester and a 2305 to Liverpool. Even though they would arrive really late. A three hours runtime with a hybrid unit can allow whichever diversions are necessary, even though whenever they're diverted they would need to remove some stops. 3 hours allows for nearly every reasonable routing.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Of course - it's too much work. It's easier just to have a consistently rubbish timetable. It's seemingly also impossible to erect safety barriers etc. so as to overcome the narrow 10 foot. It's a defeatist, production-led attitude that just about summarises the malaise within the railway as a whole.

I really don't understand this comment. Train Planning departments are so stretched that they don't have the resource to plan brand new STP Plans every week night for differences in 2 track running. And while everyone would like more resource, unlimited resource just isn't a realistic proposition.

 

[Watershed]

I really don't understand this comment. Train Planning departments are so stretched that they don't have the resource to plan brand new STP Plans every week night for differences in 2 track running. And while everyone would like more resource, unlimited resource just isn't a realistic proposition.

Well that's precisely my point. It's a production-led attitude ("we don't have enough staff to do it") rather than a customer-led attitude as you'd find in well-managed European rail networks ("we'll recruit the staff to do it"). The cost of the required additional planning staff is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and would ease a lot of pressure off overworked teams in any event.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

recruit the staff to do it"). The cost of the required additional planning staff is negligible in the grand scheme of things

Where is the evidence that that happens in Europe though?

It's a bit cliche to just go Europe does it better.

 

[zwk500]

Well that's precisely my point. It's a production-led attitude ("we don't have enough staff to do it") rather than a customer-led attitude as you'd find in well-managed European rail networks ("we'll recruit the staff to do it"). The cost of the required additional planning staff is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and would ease a lot of pressure off overworked teams in any event.

And yet, NR are still being told to reduce headcount.

 

[The Planner]

And yet, NR are still being told to reduce headcount.

10% opex and 15% capex to be saved over CP7 (it might be the other way around, but its on top of the CP6 efficiencies that had to be made)

 

[childwallblues]

Probably it's viable to have a 2303 to Manchester and a 2305 to Liverpool. Even though they would arrive really late. A three hours runtime with a hybrid unit can allow whichever diversions are necessary, even though whenever they're diverted they would need to remove some stops. 3 hours allows for nearly every reasonable routing.

Even the diversionary routes to Liverpool are electrified now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even the diversionary routes to Liverpool are electrified now.

In the 90s the last Liverpool of the day ran via Manchester, and they popped a 47 on the front for the last bit. I seem to recall it being added in Picc P14, believe it or not! It then proceeded via Warrington.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In the 90s the last Liverpool of the day ran via Manchester, and they popped a 47 on the front for the last bit. I seem to recall it being added in Picc P14, believe it or not! It then proceeded via Warrington.

That I do believe. Adding it somewhere under the main train shed at Piccadilly would have been a tad trickier if then proceeding onwards to Lime Street!