Birmingham-Manchester standalone service?

[Doctor Fegg]

Birmingham–Manchester is currently reduced to an hourly service (as with much of the CrossCountry network).

Several times in recent weeks on this forum, the idea of a standalone Birmingham-Manchester service has been mooted to restore a half-hourly frequency, perhaps using the surplus 350s for a route that is (after all) under the wires:

Since this is the speculation forum, I’d have an 8-car 350 working Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke, providing a hybrid semi-fast & local commuter service closer in to Manchester & Birmingham. Stations that don’t need an increase in frequency wouldn’t be served. Perhaps we could see:

Piccadilly - Stockport - Cheadle Hulme - Bramhall - Poynton - Macclesfield - Congleton - Stoke - Stafford - Wolverhampton - Coseley - Dudley Port - New Street.

Between Birmingham & Wolverhampton, it’s difficult to say which stations should have stops, as so many of them have a good frequency already. The worst being 2 tph, so it might be better to just call at one additional stop at most between New Street & Wolverhampton.

As with anything involving New Street, capacity is always an issue (though the station is functioning with one platform out at a time right now, which won't be the case forever).

And terminating further south isn't a free pass either:

Have a look at the MD301 graph between New St and International. Presumably the service gets given to LNWR? Doubt there are gaps in the Dec 22 re-write either.

So - could it work, and if so, how? Discuss.

 

[JonathanH]

Several times in recent weeks on this forum, the idea of a standalone Birmingham-Manchester service has been mooted to restore a half-hourly frequency, perhaps using the surplus 350s for a route that is (after all) under the wires:

On a few occasions it has been mooted to simply be the only service between Birmingham and Manchester.

The thing is that the pre-March 2020 paths required the Bournemouth and Bristol paths to interwork at Piccadilly so really Birmingham to Manchester either needs to stay hourly or both paths need to be with the same operator.

Truncation of services from Manchester to Birmingham somewhere in the West Midlands under the wires is highly desirable but it isn't just the issue of terminating services from Manchester that is the issue. A terminating point for the Cross Country services from Bournemouth and Bristol / Exeter would also need to be found and you wouldn't really want them to dwell too long at New Street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a few occasions it has been mooted to simply be the only service between Birmingham and Manchester.

The thing is that the pre-March 2020 paths required the Bournemouth and Bristol paths to interwork at Piccadilly so really Birmingham to Manchester either needs to stay hourly or both paths need to be with the same operator.

Truncation of services from Manchester to Birmingham somewhere in the West Midlands under the wires is highly desirable but it isn't just the issue of terminating services from Manchester that is the issue. A terminating point for the Cross Country services from Bournemouth and Bristol / Exeter would also need to be found.

I do think, with all three being key, important cities, a Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol XC service is very useful indeed. I would be inclined to operate that using 80x, as it has a very substantial length of electrified route but also some that isn't and won't be for some time. The other branch to Bournemouth is to me far less important, as the key destinations on that (Reading and Oxford, basically) are reachable with either a change at New St or in Reading's case via London, and even more so post-HS2.

So my inclination is that a solution might be to concentrate the 22x on Newcastle-Bournemouth (removing extensions to Scotland), that being mostly non-electrified, and separate it from the Manchester-Bristol. The current diagrams interwork, but that doesn't mean they have to.

And back to the original thread title, Manchester-Brum, being between the two cities that are debatably England's second and third cities (let's not debate which way round), clearly does justify half-hourly. Would it be feasible to string together local services in some way, perhaps joining the Crewe-Manchester stopper to the Crewe-Brum "via the wobble" stopper? Some might like a budget option.

 

[JonathanH]

Some might like a budget option.

We really have got to get away from the idea that stringing local services together is somehow worthy of being a 'budget option'. It isn't necessarily any cheaper to run. It devalues the concept of travel and it requires exactly the sort of 'confusing' TOC-only or specific route tickets that the railway needs to eliminate.

So my inclination is that a solution might be to concentrate the 22x on Newcastle-Bournemouth, that being mostly non-electrified, and separate it from the Manchester-Bristol. The current diagrams interwork, but that doesn't mean they have to.

Yes, but once you remove that interworking at Manchester you need to change many many timetables - for instance the path through Leeds or how trains work between Birmingham and Derby. It is not a quick fix.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We really have got to get away from the idea that stringing local services together is somehow worthy of being a 'budget option'.

Why? The LNR services on the WCML are a massive success and have no doubt moved many journeys from coaches and your mate's old banger onto rail.

It isn't necessarily any cheaper to run.

It is if you join them together. You're running them anyway, so if you join them up any additional "budget" through tickets sold are marginal - basically all of it is additional revenue.

It devalues the concept of travel

I have never heard such a ridiculous suggestion made against the concept of more affordable rail fares by differentiating the product, while still being able to sting people in a hurry for a higher fare on Avanti.

and it requires exactly the sort of 'confusing' TOC-only or specific route tickets that the railway needs to eliminate.

People on the south WCML do not find tickets only valid on the green trains confusing at all. This is nothing like the Northern/TPE "save 5 minutes or 10p" silliness, it's a superb piece of non-abstractive market differentiation as practiced in almost every country that has railways*, which I expect has made a quite reasonable dent in car journeys on the M1/M6.

* SNCF Corail services that parallel TGV, DB and the Quer-Durchs-Land-Ticket valid only on regional trains, ICE/IC in Germany, Frecciarossa vs Intercity in Italy...........

 

[swt_passenger]

On a few occasions it has been mooted to simply be the only service between Birmingham and Manchester.

The thing is that the pre-March 2020 paths required the Bournemouth and Bristol paths to interwork at Piccadilly so really Birmingham to Manchester either needs to stay hourly or both paths need to be with the same operator.

Truncation of services from Manchester to Birmingham somewhere in the West Midlands under the wires is highly desirable but it isn't just the issue of terminating services from Manchester that is the issue. A terminating point for the Cross Country services from Bournemouth and Bristol / Exeter would also need to be found and you wouldn't really want them to dwell too long at New Street.

Yeah but that problem usually gets covered by a Brighton to Liverpool replacemeant. Oh, that‘s a house claimed in XC Bingo as well…

 

[daodao]

A terminating point for the Cross Country services from Bournemouth and Bristol / Exeter would also need to be found and you wouldn't really want them to dwell too long at New Street.

The hourly Bristol/Exeter trains generally run through to Derby and beyond and no longer run to Manchester.

The hourly Bournemouth train could be linked with the standalone XC service from Birmingham to Nottingham.

The hourly Manchester train could be linked to a Northampton service at New Street and transferred to LNW/LM operation, to be run with class 350s like the Liverpool to Birmingham service.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Instead of creating a new service I'd hope we were to see the return of the through Bristol to Manchester services to be honest. The fact we now no longer have a direct train from the South West to the North West seems like a pretty major gap!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Instead of creating a new service I'd hope we were to see the return of the through Bristol to Manchester services to be honest. The fact we now no longer have a direct train from the South West to the North West seems like a pretty major gap!

Of the two routes to connect to Manchester, I'd say Bristol is most important.

 

[SargeNpton]

The hourly Manchester train could be linked to a Northampton service at New Street and transferred to LNW/LM operation, to be run with class 350s like the Liverpool to Birmingham service.

LNWR was splitting/joining trains at New Street a couple of years ago, with horrendous effects on reliability and time-keeping. O don't think that they will be wanting to repeat that experiment anytime soon.

 

[Watershed]

I'd have said that the following pattern would make the most sense in an ideal world, operated by a double 350 (or Aventra):

1tph Birmingham International-Crewe, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stockport, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool
1tph Birmingham International-Stafford, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stoke, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool

Thus providing an even half-hourly service between Birmingham Airport, the NEC and the city centre and each of Liverpool and Manchester, as well as providing interregional connectivity for the intermediate towns and cities.

Ideally this train would be a (semi)fast service only calling at the likes of Stockport, Wolverhampton, Runcorn etc. - but obviously there is unlikely to be the capacity to run both this and a fast London service and a local stopper on all parts of the route.

 

[Purple Orange]

In the long term, I’d like to see a Manchester-Birmingham extension of a LNW service, as I see this type of service being the WCML model between the two cities. Midlands Rail Connect has already given a view on services from Bristol & Reading to Birmingham, and none of them involve heading onwards to Manchester. We will soon find out how much of Midlands Rail Connect is included in the IRP.

• 2 x HS2 Curzon Street, Crewe, Man Airport, Piccadilly HS2
• 1 x LNW Euston, New Street, Stoke, Piccadilly (with various stops)

 

[JonathanH]

1tph Birmingham International-Crewe, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stockport, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool
1tph Birmingham International-Stafford, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stoke, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool

Splitting at Crewe is a right nuisance though with only certain platforms able to access the Manchester line. It also slows up the journey.

 

[Watershed]

Splitting at Crewe is a right nuisance though with only certain platforms able to access the Manchester line.

That applies to any train to Manchester though. It doesn't really pose that big a problem in practice.

It also slows up the journey.

Southern regularly do splitting and joining at Haywards Heath in 7 mins - 4 mins for the split/join and 3 mins for headway. That's only 5 mins longer than the minimum dwell time, which would more than be recouped by losing a few stops.

 

[JonathanH]

Southern regularly do splitting and joining at Haywards Heath in 7 mins - 4 mins for the split/join and 3 mins for headway. That's only 5 mins longer than the minimum dwell time, which would more than be recouped by losing a few stops.

Horsham yes, but Haywards Heath splitting has largely been discontinued since the Victoria to Brighton service was diverted to the East Coastway.

 

[Watershed]

Horsham yes, but Haywards Heath splitting has largely been discontinued since the Victoria to Brighton service was diverted to the East Coastway.

Ok, but that's only a "temporary" move whilst Gatwick is rebuilt. Fundamentally it shows it's doable without too big a time penalty.

 

[JonathanH]

Ok, but that's only a "temporary" move whilst Gatwick is rebuilt. Fundamentally it shows it's doable without too big a time penalty.

I dont think Haywards Heath splitting will come back now that people have seen the quicker timings (and hopefully better reliability) possible without it.

Does Crewe or Stafford have the permissive working set up necessary for regular splitting? (I don't know.)

 

[daodao]

LNWR was splitting/joining trains at New Street a couple of years ago, with horrendous effects on reliability and time-keeping. O don't think that they will be wanting to repeat that experiment anytime soon.

OK - there are fewer problems in terminating an electric service from Manchester at New Street. However, the foul polluting hourly XC Voyager from Bournemouth train shouldn't be allowed to terminate there; it could be linked with the standalone XC service from Birmingham to Nottingham.

1tph Birmingham International-Crewe, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stockport, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool
1tph Birmingham International-Stafford, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stoke, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool

There is no need to split trains and it would be an operational nightmare: 1 tph from Birmingham to Manchester and 1 tph to Liverpool now seems to considered adequate. If there are capacity issues, run an 8-car class 350.

 

[Watershed]

I dont think Haywards Heath splitting will come back now that people have seen the quicker timings (and hopefully better reliability) possible without it.

I suspect that it will be an issue of cost/revenue rather than anything else. Lots of potential extra revenue for the Treasury if they can push people onto expensive Any Permitted fares if GatEx is the only direct Victoria-Brighton service...

Does Crewe or Stafford have the permissive working set up necessary for regular splitting? (I don't know.)

Yes, both are permissive in all platforms.

However, the foul polluting hourly XC Voyager from Bournemouth train shouldn't be allowed to terminate there; it could be linked with the standalone XC service from Birmingham to Nottingham.

The Nottingham local interworks with the Cardiff service. Of course, it depends how realistic we want this hypothetical proposal to be...

 

[Ianno87]

I'd have said that the following pattern would make the most sense in an ideal world, operated by a double 350 (or Aventra):

1tph Birmingham International-Crewe, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stockport, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool
1tph Birmingham International-Stafford, with one portion continuing on to Manchester via Stoke, the other portion continuing on to Liverpool

Thus providing an even half-hourly service between Birmingham Airport, the NEC and the city centre and each of Liverpool and Manchester, as well as providing interregional connectivity for the intermediate towns and cities.

Ideally this train would be a (semi)fast service only calling at the likes of Stockport, Wolverhampton, Runcorn etc. - but obviously there is unlikely to be the capacity to run both this and a fast London service and a local stopper on all parts of the route.

That's operationally horrific.

The only benefit compared to the pre-Covid pattern is giving Coventry/Birmingham International a link to Crewe/Runcorn/Liverpool, whilst generally extending journey times.

 

[Watershed]

That's operationally horrific.

Is it? Splitting and joining is commonplace on numerous parts of the network. But of course there would be the alternative of operating at quarter-hourly intervals without splitting and joining.

The only benefit compared to the pre-Covid pattern is giving Coventry/Birmingham International a link to Crewe/Runcorn/Liverpool, whilst generally extending journey times.

There's a big benefit in terms of reliability by cutting 2tph from the Stour Valley. There are also associated savings in traincrew.

 

[Ianno87]

Is it? Splitting and joining is commonplace on numerous parts of the network.

Commonplace, yes, but generally the strategy is to reduce this due to the resilience impact; SWR, GTR, Southeastern have all reduced the level to which they do this in recent years, which yields performance benefits.

The other down side of splitting and joining is then only providing a half-length train into Liverpool and Manchester, which would also be inadequate.

But of course there would be the alternative of operating at quarter-hourly intervals without splitting and joining.

Which is, essentially, the pre-Covid service.

There's a big benefit in terms of reliability by cutting 2tph from the Stour Valley.

Though risks having two trains so full of Liverpool/Manchester passengers there's no capacity for folks joining at Wolves etc.

 

[Watershed]

Commonplace, yes, but generally the strategy is to reduce this due to the resilience impact; SWR, GTR, Southeastern have all reduced the level to which they do this in recent years, which yields performance benefits.

Of course there are performance benefits, but these need to be countered against the performance disbenefit of having a million trains per hour through the Stour Valley.

The other down side of splitting and joining is then only providing a half-length train into Liverpool and Manchester, which would also be inadequate.

Once operation switches over to a 5 coach Aventra, I don't think that would necessarily be inadequate.

Which is, essentially, the pre-Covid service.

Except the pre-Covid service was flighted (so functionally equivalent to 2tph for intermediate markets). And not even precisely half-hourly at that.

Though risks having two trains so full of Liverpool/Manchester passengers there's no capacity for folks joining at Wolves etc.

Local Wolverhampton-Birmingham etc. passengers were the primary cause of overcrowding on these services pre-Covid. So perhaps these services should be advertised as pick up/set down only (even if that isn't necessarily enforced in practice), with passengers directed onto the local services which usually have plenty of capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once operation switches over to a 5 coach Aventra, I don't think that would necessarily be inadequate.

I might be wrong, but I recall that 12.350 (or 5.Aventra) can't operate north of Northampton for various reasons. I've certainly never seen a 12 car not leave 4 behind at Northampton.

 

[Watershed]

I might be wrong, but I recall that 12.350 (or 5.Aventra) can't operate north of Northampton for various reasons. I've certainly never seen a 12 car not leave 4 behind at Northampton.

I don't see there's any reason why a double Aventra would be unable to operate north of Northampton. You'd be calling at exactly the same stations as 265m long Pendolini do all day long.

 

[birchesgreen]

It devalues the concept of travel and it requires exactly the sort of 'confusing' TOC-only or specific route tickets that the railway needs to eliminate.

How does it devalue the concept of travel?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Birmingham–Manchester is currently reduced to an hourly service (as with much of the CrossCountry network).

Several times in recent weeks on this forum, the idea of a standalone Birmingham-Manchester service has been mooted to restore a half-hourly frequency, perhaps using the surplus 350s for a route that is (after all) under the wires:

How many surplus 350s are there? Enough to run a full half-hourly Manchester-Birmingham service, or only enough to run an hourly service? And is this a permanent surplus or a temporary surplus caused by the reduced Covid timetable?

 

[Watershed]

How many surplus 350s are there? Enough to run a full half-hourly Manchester-Birmingham service, or only enough to run an hourly service? And is this a permanent surplus or a temporary surplus caused by the reduced Covid timetable?

There are 37 350/2s which are going off-lease, and remain unspoken for.

With a half-hour turnaround at each end, it'd be a 4 hourly cycle. Hence 8 circuits, or 16 units.

You could comfortably run a half-hourly service to Liverpool and Manchester, each with 8 coaches, out of that subfleet alone.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are 37 350/2s which are going off-lease, and remain unspoken for.

With a half-hour turnaround at each end, it'd be a 4 hourly cycle. Hence 8 circuits, or 16 units.

You could comfortably run a half-hourly service to Liverpool and Manchester, each with 8 coaches, out of that subfleet alone.

Ah OK thanks. That seems insane to have so many units going to be unused - since they are fairly pleasant to travel on and a look at Wikipedia seems to say that they are less than 20 years old. Is there something wrong with them that I don't know about?

If they are available, and with XC's longstanding shortage of Voyagers, it would seem very sensible to use them to replace XC between Birmingham and Manchester, since that would remove diesel-under-the-wires and presumably allow XC to run more full-length trains on the rest of its route. I would imagine the inconvenience of having to change at Birmingham would be made up for by a reasonable expectation of actually getting a seat and a comfortable journey south of Birmingham. The issue, as others have pointed out, then seems to be not wanting trains to terminate at New Street because of capacity. Is there capacity to terminate XC trains from the South at any of Wolverhampton, Derby, or (for trains from the SW) International?

To avoid terminating the new Manchester-Birmingham trains at New Street, could you merge them with the Birmingham-Walsall stoppers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah OK thanks. That seems insane to have so many units going to be unused - since they are fairly pleasant to travel on and a look at Wikipedia seems to say that they are less than 20 years old. Is there something wrong with them that I don't know about?

The price, basically. Abellio called the ROSCO's bluff, and the ROSCO lost.

Even though they are 3+2 they are quite popular round these parts (and the layout does have some benefits, such as the excellent legroom in the facing 3-side bays).