What to do with LNWR London-Birmingham services post-HS2

[Starmill]

I would point out that there is already an indicative capacity allocation for the WCML South Post-HS2 phase 1 and 2a which has apparently got lost here.

It is as follows for trains from London Euston:

• Manchester Piccadilly via Stoke-on-Trent, calling at Watford Junction and Milton Keynes Central
• Wolverhampton via Birmingham New Street, calling at Milton Keynes Central and Rugby
• Scotland via Birmingham New Street, calling at Watford Junction and Milton Keynes Central
• North Wales via Chester, calling at Milton Keynes Central and Rugby

Also:

• Three Tring stoppers, two of which call at Wembley Central
• Two Bletchley stoppers, one of which is the only service for Cheddington
• One Milton Keynes Central stopper, which just skips Bushey, Harrow & Wealdstone, Apsley and Kings Langley
• Three services cross-Northampton, one express to Leighton Buzzard, one Watford Junction then Milton Keynes Central and one the semi-fast pattern (pretty much as today really), but crucially all call at Long Buckby
• One Crewe via Trent Valley service as now

And:

• One service from the West London Line to Milton Keynes Central
• Two services from Oxford to Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central
• One service from London Marylebone via Aylesbury to Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central
• Five freight paths
• Four DC line stoppers

This timetable would be enormously beneficial for so many reasons. 3tph proper express trains from Rugby to London, 3tph from Long Buckby to London 3tph fast between Watford Junction and Milton Keynes Central, 5tph to London for Bletchley and Leighton Buzzard, 7tph to London for Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead, a big increase for thr FOCs, regular Manchester services for Watford Junction, a regular express from Rugby to Crewe for northward connections, more fast trains from Wembley Central, the list is endless really.

The peak service is also more intensive, with two Trent Valley stoppers fast to Milton Keynes Central then Rugby, five Tring turnbacks, a second West London Line service terminating at Watford Junction, and a fourth cross-Northampton service. We're not building a new offline route for a joke.

I would also think that providing phase 2a does open by the time the HS2 services are running from London Euston HS2, there is room to offer two Trent Valley services all day, so that stations Rugeley Trent Valley - Nuneaton inclusive have 2tph to London.

If you for some reason were trying to reduce this timetable down, what I would be tempted to do is withdraw one or both of the two Bletchley terminators and compensate Leighton Buzzard with a stop on the Manchester Piccadilly train.

There are many further things we don't know. If Crewe to Chester can be served directly by an HS2 portion for example it may be that there's less need for the fast classic path for North Wales.

A further key point that seems to be forgotten here is that if you separated all of the cross-Northampton West Midlands services you'd remove all of the Long Buckby to London trains.

 

[Purple Orange]

I still think that is a massive assumption to make, if you can time a train to do 125mph then it will happen.

I wouldn’t say so. The main aim of HS2 on the south WCML is to remove Intercity services in order to free up capacity to accommodate more commuter services, plus as others have pointed out, there will be no stock capable of tilting.

 

[Starmill]

I doubt there will be an Avanti service of any kind. It won't be 125mph running because it no longer needs to be. Whatever services are running on the WCML post HS2, there should be a greater consistency of rolling stock. Doors at 1/3 & 2/3, 8-cars, 110mph max, calling at more stops between cities. HS2 will be doing the job Avanti does today.

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out directly or not yet but Chester and North Wales have not as yet secured an HS2 service, so there will no doubt be a fast classic service there.

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn’t say so. The main aim of HS2 on the south WCML is to remove Intercity services in order to free up capacity to accommodate more commuter services, plus as others have pointed out, there will be no stock capable of tilting.

Why would it be a 110mph railway when Avanti are actively pursuing and working up a non EPS line speed increase for the 805/807 stock?

 

[A0]

Northampton should have more than 2 TPH to London - it's a town of 225k.

Bedford is only 100k and gets 4 TPH, Peterboro is 200k and gets 2 TPH Thameslink plus LNER, Chelmsford 110k gets 5 TPH to London.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why would it be a 110mph railway when Avanti are actively pursuing and working up a non EPS line speed increase for the 805/807 stock?

What benefits will be realised by having 125 mph running on services with more stops? How will improved capacity be realised if we are still running the WCML just as it is today?

 

[JonathanH]

Northampton should have more than 2 TPH to London - it's a town of 225k.

Bedford is only 100k and gets 4 TPH, Peterboro is 200k and gets 2 TPH Thameslink plus LNER, Chelmsford 110k gets 5 TPH to London.

That doesn't necessarily follow - there are other factors like how many people are already on the train, what other suitable places there are to terminate trains and the percentage of the population that want to commute to London.

You could terminate two of Bedford's 4tph at Luton if there was suitable platform capacity there.

 

[Starmill]

What benefits will be realised by having 125 mph running on services with more stops? How will improved capacity be realised if we are still running the WCML just as it is today?

Given there will be overall at least 3tph fast from London to Milton Keynes Central and at least 2tph fast from Milton Keynes Central to Coventry or either Stafford or Crewe it's hard to see how there wouldn't be a benefit.

 

[JonathanH]

Given there will be overall at least 3tph fast from London to Milton Keynes Central and at least 2tph fast from Milton Keynes Central to Coventry or either Stafford or Crewe it's hard to see how there wouldn't be a benefit.

Yes, but to really maximise capacity on the southern WCML for freight on the slow lines there should really be calls at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead and Leighton Buzzard on the fast lines. Running 125mph trains doesn't make that easy to accommodate.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but to really maximise capacity on the southern WCML for freight on the slow lines there should really be calls at Watford Junction, Hemel Hempstead and Leighton Buzzard on the fast lines. Running 125mph trains doesn't make that easy to accommodate.

If there are as few as 8tph using the fast lines it's unlikely to be that much of an issue, given only 3 run fast all the way from London to Milton Keynes Central and all of the others have either 1, 2 or 3 fast line stops. There isn't an accommodation for freight at peak times, and one of the Watford Junction calls is still dropped.

 

[A0]

That doesn't necessarily follow - there are other factors like how many people are already on the train, what other suitable places there are to terminate trains and the percentage of the population that want to commute to London.

You could terminate two of Bedford's 4tph at Luton if there was suitable platform capacity there.

It justifies 3tph (or at least did pre Covid) - a 33% reduction is unlikely to attract more people to use the train.

 

[cle]

The WCML is much more than London - Rugby, and 125mph running will still be very useful and well-needed north of Milton Keynes. HS2 may well be running on the WCML indefinitely - hence the opposite (EPS speeds for non-tilt stock) would benefit that as well as whatever takes over from the Pendos.

That said, if running at 110 between Watford and MKC makes more sense for pathing and the odd fast call for Hemel and Bletchley (Leighton Buzzard is wildly over-served in the post HS2 plans and doesn’t need fast trains north, Bletchley on the other hand, will have EWR) - then run at 110 until MKC.

Northampton is a bit of a forgotten place. You can’t compare it to these places on the mainlines. An overlooked, overgrown small town.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northampton is a bit of a forgotten place. You can’t compare it to these places on the mainlines. An overlooked, overgrown small town.

It's an odd place - the housing is very New Town-like as it's been expanded similar to MK, but the centre is traditional but really run-down (not just a bit scruffy like Bedford, quite unpleasant). Given how close to London it is it'd be ripe for improvement.

 

[Aictos]

If I'm right, wasn't reliability for the LNWR services made worse by the lack of enough crew/unit diagrams rather then the actual destinations of the services?

Could not a London Euston to Birmingham New Street interwork with a Northampton to Birmingham New Street and have the Liverpool to Birmingham International interwork with the Rugeley to Birmingham International services instead?

It would mean Birmingham New Street only sees London Euston and Northampton services terminating there with Birmingham International only seeing Rugeley and Liverpool services terminating there with services being self contained so 350101 would work a mix of Northampton to Birmingham New Street to London Euston to Birmingham New Street to Northampton etc

 

[The Planner]

What benefits will be realised by having 125 mph running on services with more stops? How will improved capacity be realised if we are still running the WCML just as it is today?

Believe me, 1 minute makes a difference on lines like these, it is often a path or a rejection. If it is possible to path something at 125mph then it will happen, even if it means you have a longer dwell somewhere because you start catching something up.

 

[172007]

Survey of the route to see where new stations are viable I.e. Coventry South. Plenty of new housing has been will be built near to the line.

 

[PTR 444]

Another slight tangent but seeing as Willenhall and Darlaston stations are being proposed for reopening, how feasible would it be to divert some Birmingham - Wolverhampton services that way on a permanent basis to relieve capacity on the Tipton route?

The routing could be either New Street - Soho South Junction - Hamstead - Tame Bridge Parkway - Willenhall - Wolverhampton, or the slightly longer way round via Aston (which would require trains to depart in the opposite direction at New Street).

 

[The Planner]

Survey of the route to see where new stations are viable I.e. Coventry South. Plenty of new housing has been will be built near to the line.

Various stations are being proposed but none of them are far enough in development to be considered currently.

Another slight tangent but seeing as Willenhall and Darlaston stations are being proposed for reopening, how feasible would it be to divert some Birmingham - Wolverhampton services that way on a permanent basis to relieve capacity on the Tipton route?

The routing could be either New Street - Soho South Junction - Hamstead - Tame Bridge Parkway - Willenhall - Wolverhampton, or the slightly longer way round via Aston (which would require trains to depart in the opposite direction at New Street).

They are being reopened, construction will start soon. The plan is divert a Crewe train via the new stations. It won't relieve capacity as you still need to run Soho to New St and you are importing in two new crossing moves on the Stours.