Could Avanti West Coast increase its services and the stations it calls at?

[ThrowAway10101]

I think I've worded the title poorly so if anyone can rewrite it i'd appreciate it a lot.

AWC is pretty useful for me being the only express train. But with places like Shrewsbury, Northampton and Nuneaton I've seen they hardly call there and if they do its late or only in one direction. For example, for their vector map i see the Shrewsbury to Euston line, with Northampton as a limited stop, but its never from Shrewsbury but from Birmingham New Street.

Are there plans to increase services? I've read it was supposed to happen in 2022 but due to covid those plans got shelved, and now it's supposedly due to strikes. Apparently they've got until October to improve their track record but not sure if it includes increasing services.

 

[JonathanH]

Are there plans to increase services?

There aren't plans to increase services at Northampton.

Any increase would just be those associated with the introduction of the 807s, eg the additional hourly Liverpool service, and restoration of a second fast service for Birmingham each hour, which were part of the December 2022 plans.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There aren't plans to increase services at Northampton.
Any increase would just be those associated with the introduction of the 807s, eg the additional hourly Liverpool service, and restoration of a second fast service for Birmingham each hour.

Plus, hopefully, the restoration of hourly services to Scotland via Birmingham, and to Chester/North Wales.
Otherwise, Avanti will have spare stock, including some new 80x units, lying unused.

 

[dk1]

Improving their track record is purely to do with the operating the current service reliably. It does not include operating additional services away from the core network.

 

[SargeNpton]

Avanti services via Northampton are only a token effort, not really meant for useful passenger journeys but to allow the TOC's drivers to retain route knowledge for when the Northampton Loop is used for diversions.

 

[Philip]

If Avanti take over Manchester-Scotland, is there a possibility they may combine the service with an exisiting London-Manchester, to potentially improve the the fleet efficiency? With two services per hour leaving from the main shed, you could probably get away with having one picking up passengers from the through-platform. Retaining direct Scotland-Man Airport services is not essential, but an extra London service from the North West/Scotland would be useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Avanti take over Manchester-Scotland, is there a possibility they may combine the service with an exisiting London-Manchester, to potentially improve the the fleet efficiency? With two services per hour leaving from the main shed, you could probably get away with having one picking up passengers from the through-platform. Retaining direct Scotland-Man Airport services is not essential, but an extra London service from the North West/Scotland would be useful.

I am not aware of any concrete proposal for them to do that, though I could see *some* sense in it.

It's not really workable because 13/14 couldn't handle the numbers from a London service, so it'd have to still be an Airport-Scotland service until post HS2.

 

[Philip]

I am not aware of any concrete proposal for them to do that, though I could see *some* sense in it.

It's not really workable because 13/14 couldn't handle the numbers from a London service, so it'd have to still be an Airport-Scotland service until post HS2.

The xx:13 from Euston could potentially link with the xx:21 from Piccadilly to Scotland, likewise the xx:26 arrival at Manchester Pic could form the xx:35 to London Euston.

I think the thing about 13/14 not handling the numbers is a bit of a red herring; thee are plenty of other very busy through services which use the platforms and some of these have around half the number of coaches. Perhaps it would need better organisation between the waiting area above and the platforms, but I think it'd be workable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The xx:13 from Euston could potentially link with the xx:21 from Piccadilly to Scotland, likewise the xx:26 arrival at Manchester Pic could form the xx:35 to London Euston.

I think the thing about 13/14 not handling the numbers is a bit of a red herring; thee are plenty of other very busy through services which use the platforms and some of these have around half the number of coaches. Perhaps it would need better organisation between the waiting area above and the platforms, but I think it'd be workable.

I'm certain it wouldn't. The numbers on the London services are absolutely massive, with everything else using 13/14 it would be highly dangerous.

It could only work if 15/16 was built or 13/14 were changed to wide side platforms cantilevered off the viaduct.

 

[dk1]

If Avanti take over Manchester-Scotland, is there a possibility they may combine the service with an exisiting London-Manchester, to potentially improve the the fleet efficiency? With two services per hour leaving from the main shed, you could probably get away with having one picking up passengers from the through-platform. Retaining direct Scotland-Man Airport services is not essential, but an extra London service from the North West/Scotland would be useful.

When Virgin did that during engineering works, going from platform 13/14 proved very unpopular with Manchester to Euston passengers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If Avanti take over Manchester-Scotland, is there a possibility they may combine the service with an exisiting London-Manchester, to potentially improve the the fleet efficiency? With two services per hour leaving from the main shed, you could probably get away with having one picking up passengers from the through-platform. Retaining direct Scotland-Man Airport services is not essential, but an extra London service from the North West/Scotland would be useful.

London-Scotland via Manchester is no better than via Birmingham for through passengers.
The Airport link has a significant business from the north-west generally, and Glasgow/Edinburgh.
The stop at Oxford Road is busy for TPE but wouldn't work with anything longer than a 5-car 221/805 Avanti, so no good for London services.

 

[Philip]

When Virgin did that during engineering works, going from platform 13/14 proved very unpopular with Manchester to Euston passengers.

It's hardly a long rambling trek to leave the station and passengers coming from Liverpool and the North West/Scotland all have to use platforms 13 and 14. I still think if it's just 1 out of 3 per hour using these platforms then they'll be able to cope - particularly if advance tickets are set at a higher price for London-Manchester journeys on this service.

 

[jfollows]

Connecting London-Manchester with Manchester-Scotland would murder the reliability of the services, especially the Manchester-London leg. It'd be like connecting London-Birmingham with Birmingham-Liverpool - this turned out badly!

 

[Philip]

London-Scotland via Manchester is no better than via Birmingham for through passengers.
The Airport link has a significant business from the north-west generally, and Glasgow/Edinburgh.
The stop at Oxford Road is busy for TPE but wouldn't work with anything longer than a 5-car 221/805 Avanti, so no good for London services.

It wouldn't be hugely longer now that the linespeed between Preston and Manchester has increased. Could a Pendolino or double 397 not call at Oxford Road with only the doors of the first 6 coaches opening? The Airport would be better served with a frequent Piccadilly-Airport shuttle, every 10-15 minutes - this would be more reliable than sending long distance trains there.

Connecting London-Manchester with Manchester-Scotland would murder the reliability of the services, especially the Manchester-London leg. It'd be like connecting London-Birmingham with Birmingham-Liverpool - this turned out badly!

It's no worse than joining London-Birmingham with Birmingham-Scotland - and the Birmingham New Street platform arrangement isn't any better than Piccadilly 13/14, but they still currently put a London-Scotland through New Street.

 

[JonathanH]

Connecting London-Manchester with Manchester-Scotland would murder the reliability of the services, especially the Manchester-London leg. It'd be like connecting London-Birmingham with Birmingham-Liverpool - this turned out badly!

It is worth noting as well that the London - Birmingham - Scotland trains were given significant dwell time at Wolverhampton southbound, and Birmingham northbound. It isn't clear where that would happen if there were London - Manchester - Scotland trains. Presumably at Preston.

 

[ThrowAway10101]

Avanti services via Northampton are only a token effort, not really meant for useful passenger journeys but to allow the TOC's drivers to retain route knowledge for when the Northampton Loop is used for diversions.

I see, that makes sense.

Do they still go to Shrewsbury though? They hardly do IIRC

 

[zwk500]

I see, that makes sense.

Do they still go to Shrewsbury though? They hardly do IIRC

1 in each direction showing on RTT next Wednesday to Shrewsbury. Wrexham shows only 1 northbound train and no southbound, Holyhead gets 5 in each direction, Blackpool North 3 each direction. Not sure of any other irregular calls.

 

[The Planner]

The xx:13 from Euston could potentially link with the xx:21 from Piccadilly to Scotland, likewise the xx:26 arrival at Manchester Pic could form the xx:35 to London Euston.

I think the thing about 13/14 not handling the numbers is a bit of a red herring; thee are plenty of other very busy through services which use the platforms and some of these have around half the number of coaches. Perhaps it would need better organisation between the waiting area above and the platforms, but I think it'd be workable.

Its not a red herring. Avanti will only set down if diverted via 13/14. Its far from comaprable with New St.

It is worth noting as well that the London - Birmingham - Scotland trains were given significant dwell time at Wolverhampton southbound, and Birmingham northbound. It isn't clear where that would happen if there were London - Manchester - Scotland trains. Presumably at Preston.

Its because its two joined up paths. Easier than retiming the whole thing in either direction.

 

[Philip]

Its not a red herring. Avanti will only set down if diverted via 13/14. Its far from comaprable with New St.

I can only go by experience of both and I would say New Street platforms are even more crowded and claustrophobic than 13/14 are. The steps up to the concourse are also narrow. Platform 14 especially has a good amount of space at the western end because trains using 13 stop at the Eastern end.

 

[30907]

I can only go by experience of both and I would say New Street platforms are even more crowded and claustrophobic than 13/14 are. The steps up to the concourse are also narrow. Platform 14 especially has a good amount of space at the western end because trains using 13 stop at the Eastern end.

1. A Pendolino would occupy the whole length.
2. The stop would need to be several minutes which would cause problems (even if the pathing/performance stop was at Stockport or somewhere).

 

[The Planner]

I can only go by experience of both and I would say New Street platforms are even more crowded and claustrophobic than 13/14 are. The steps up to the concourse are also narrow. Platform 14 especially has a good amount of space at the western end because trains using 13 stop at the Eastern end.

I am amazed you think 13 and 14 are better than New St! New St has three sets of stairs and a lift compared to that ropey access to 13 and 14.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I could see Avanti taking over the Airport-Scotland service from TPE if it was reorganised, along with the 397s, but not operating through trains from London.
Virgin did bid for services to Bolton I remember, but I think it would have been a single service early/late.
That prospect died with covid, if not before.
They also bid for Stirling, but that is now a OA prospect.

Wrexham does have a return service from Euston (1802 from Euston).
There is also a Saturday service (1902 from Euston).

 

[RailWonderer]

When Virgin did that during engineering works, going from platform 13/14 proved very unpopular with Manchester to Euston passengers.

It's unpopular with all passengers.

The overcongested Castlefield corridor does not need Pendolinos through it to ruin reliability of a service that has been unreliable in recent years and recovered very well from it.

 

[dk1]

It's unpopular with all passengers.

The overcongested Castlefield corridor does not need Pendolinos through it to ruin reliability of a service that has been unreliable in recent years and recovered very well from it.

I concur wholeheartedly.

 

[Philip]

It's unpopular with all passengers.

The overcongested Castlefield corridor does not need Pendolinos through it to ruin reliability of a service that has been unreliable in recent years and recovered very well from it.

Having Pendolinos (or double 397s) running through would provide an increase in capacity over the current 5-car formations.

It is part of an intercity route and needs more long distance services for improved connectivity, if congestion is a problem then send more local services to Victoria to make room.

 

[zwk500]

Having Pendolinos (or double 397s) running through would provide an increase in capacity over the current 5-car formations.

It is part of an intercity route and needs more long distance services for improved connectivity, if congestion is a problem then send more local services to Victoria to make room.

Not in 13/14. A Pendo needs minimum 2 minutes dwell but probably 3 in Piccadilly. I'm fairly sure the headway on Castlefield is 2.5, although it could be 2 or 3. Either way, add the platform Re-occupation on and the Pendo takes up two paths all on its own (before you account for the fact it should probably have an extra 30 seconds headway behind it because it'll take up twice as many block sections.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Having Pendolinos (or double 397s) running through would provide an increase in capacity over the current 5-car formations.

There is no arguing with that. A 9, 10 or 11 carriage train definitely does increase capacity over a 5 carriage one. You don't seem to mention why a 9, 10 or 11 carriage train is needed though nor where these additional trains would be magicked up from.

It is part of an intercity route and needs more long distance services for improved connectivity, if congestion is a problem then send more local services to Victoria to make room.

That just looks like some random words. What sort of improved connectivity are you talking about? There are already Manchester - Scotland and Manchester - London services so combining the 2 would provide next to no improved connectivity at all, except for the hoards of people who want to travel from Stockport - Penrith.

 

[Philip]

There is no arguing with that. A 9, 10 or 11 carriage train definitely does increase capacity over a 5 carriage one. You don't seem to mention why a 9, 10 or 11 carriage train is needed though nor where these additional trains would be magicked up from.

Manchester-Bolton-Preston is a route just getting busier and busier, as is Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh. For the latter we're already at the point where the 5-coach formation doesn't provide enough capacity - even 5 years ago some Friday and weekend services were booked to run as 8-coach 350s. This route needs the same level of capacity as Birmingham-Scotland does - hourly and anything between 9 and 11 coaches.

That just looks like some random words. What sort of improved connectivity are you talking about? There are already Manchester - Scotland and Manchester - London services so combining the 2 would provide next to no improved connectivity at all, except for the hoards of people who want to travel from Stockport - Penrith.

Improved connectivity includes introducing direct London services from Salford Crescent, Bolton and Chorley - not hourly but each of these places would benefit from a few direct services instead of having to change all the time. As well as this we need to restore direct services between Bolton/Salford and Stockport, as currently there aren't any which is stupid considering these are large places within a metropolis.

Not in 13/14. A Pendo needs minimum 2 minutes dwell but probably 3 in Piccadilly. I'm fairly sure the headway on Castlefield is 2.5, although it could be 2 or 3. Either way, add the platform Re-occupation on and the Pendo takes up two paths all on its own (before you account for the fact it should probably have an extra 30 seconds headway behind it because it'll take up twice as many block sections.

I suggest removing the Macclesfield stop on the London via Stoke which closely connects with the Manchester-Scotland path, to allow 2-3 more minutes dwell time at Piccadilly. The other London via Stoke can still serve Macclesfield and Wilmslow will continue to be served by the one via Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

I suggest removing the Macclesfield stop on the London via Stoke which closely connects with the Manchester-Scotland path, to allow 2-3 more minutes dwell time at Piccadilly. The other London via Stoke can still serve Macclesfield and Wilmslow will continue to be served by the one via Crewe.

Macclesfield only gets 1tph from Avanti, they both don't stop there. Take the Macc stop out the current train and it causes clashes with the up Avanti via Crewe at Cheadle Hulme, the Cleethorpes to Liverpool TPE at Edgeley, the Liverpool to Airport service and Airport to Blackpool service at Picc. Swap it on the up direction and you clash with the Edinburgh via the West Mids at Rugby.

 

[dk1]

Macclesfield only gets 1tph from Avanti, they both don't stop there. Take the Macc stop out the current train and it causes clashes with the up Avanti via Crewe at Cheadle Hulme, the Cleethorpes to Liverpool TPE at Edgeley, the Liverpool to Airport service and Airport to Blackpool service at Picc. Swap it on the up direction and you clash with the Edinburgh via the West Mids at Rugby.

Knew you’d know mate. Great stuff.