Direct trains to London- does everywhere need them?

[ian9393]

While I am not familiar with the signalling and capacity etc. As a resident of Warrington, it is most annoying that the stopping patterns have been changed so that there are no stops between Warrington and London. Even the Birmingham train no longer stops at Stafford.

The rail network is being designed to provide expensive, fast trains to London for business people and sod everyone else. At WBQ, a fulsome apology is offered if the London train is even a couple of minutes late. The following Arriva Trains Wales service to Llandudno changes platform and turns up late (delayed by the bloomin London train) without even an announcement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
While I am not familiar with the signalling and capacity issues, as a resident of Warrington, it is most annoying that the stopping patterns have been changed so that there are no stops between Warrington and London. Even the Birmingham train no longer stops at Stafford. After waiting years for the Trent Valley stopping service, I can't get a reasonable connection to it!

The rail network is being designed to provide expensive, fast trains to London for business people and sod everyone else. At WBQ, a fulsome apology is offered if the London train is even a couple of minutes late. The following Arriva Trains Wales service to Llandudno changes platform and turns up late (delayed by the bloomin London train) without even an announcement.

 

[TheWalrus]

Presumably because all services on the Wolverhampton line are fairly "local" beyond Shrewsbury?

Telford would probably get a much better service if it was in the West Midlands, given "Centro" (Network West Midlands etc) funding.

Is there capacity on the line for an additional train per hour from Wolves to Shrewsbury at the moment?



A 175 isn't that much worse than a Voyager - better in some respects - be careful what you wish for!

Well tbh I'd rather have a 175 than a Voyager, it's just a Voyager can go faster and conveys 1st Class.

 

[me123]

While I am not familiar with the signalling and capacity etc. As a resident of Warrington, it is most annoying that the stopping patterns have been changed so that there are no stops between Warrington and London. Even the Birmingham train no longer stops at Stafford.

The rail network is being designed to provide expensive, fast trains to London for business people and sod everyone else. At WBQ, a fulsome apology is offered if the London train is even a couple of minutes late. The following Arriva Trains Wales service to Llandudno changes platform and turns up late (delayed by the bloomin London train) without even an announcement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
While I am not familiar with the signalling and capacity issues, as a resident of Warrington, it is most annoying that the stopping patterns have been changed so that there are no stops between Warrington and London. Even the Birmingham train no longer stops at Stafford. After waiting years for the Trent Valley stopping service, I can't get a reasonable connection to it!

The rail network is being designed to provide expensive, fast trains to London for business people and sod everyone else. At WBQ, a fulsome apology is offered if the London train is even a couple of minutes late. The following Arriva Trains Wales service to Llandudno changes platform and turns up late (delayed by the bloomin London train) without even an announcement.

I can understand your frustration. I've always wondered what happens if you're not going to London from Warrington; most trains seem to go non-stop. I'd be all for an additional stop at Crewe; I think the reduction in journey time is worth the additional journey opportunities. And I'm speaking from Glasgow here! I'm sure the extra 5 minutes (if it could be fitted in, of course) would be worthwhile for passengers North of Crewe.

However, I do think there's a good reason for serving London. I'm sure we're all aware that London is the Capital City of the UK and England. It's important. A direct rail link can provide economic benefits for the towns it serves. That's the reason that all current Open Access Operators serve London. And let's remember that most rail journeys involve London in some way anyway (albeit mostly because of the dense South East network, but my point still stands).

I don't think it's a reason to ignore Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and other important cities in the UK, but there's a reason the network is focussed on London. That said, I'd like to see places get better rail links.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
gingerheid made the point that ECML North of Edinburgh is lightly used. I think there's a good reason to retain services, however. Edinburgh-Glasgow via Carstairs, IMO, is chronically underused. An hourly link would be valuable (although I would suggest alternating XC and NXEC) not only for passengers changing at Central, but also for Motherwell passengers. Motherwell-Edinburgh is actually a pretty large commuter corridor, which has the potential to grow. The 0704 ex MTH is actually quite busy on weekdays! Furthermore, Aberdeen has a good case as well; being a huge oil city. The direct links are again well used, particularly on Tuesdays when a lot of the rigs change their crews. I don't think cutting current links to London is a good option because you would:

• Remove local journey opportunities anyway
• Remove a valuable link from a town or city

 

[43106]

Recently, XC appear to have surrendered WCML services north of Birmingham, except to Manchester, and have "returned" them to Virgin. At the same time, Virgin undertook a revamp, and 'gave' us the hourly service to Chester (bl**dy daft, if you ask me) and an hourly service to Manchester via Wilmslow, which is a bit extravagent - 1 every 2 hours is probably enough. They also messed up the Euston - Glasgow service by having virtually NO stops between Euston and Warrington, as noted above - I reckon EVERY passenger scheduled to go via Crewe should stop there. Stops at Watford and Nuneaton have been decimated, but a new LM service that runs Euston - Rugby - Nuneaton - Lichfield - Stafford - Stoke - Crewe every hour or so does offer a degree of compensation, but not much. I reckon this service could be extended to Preston, stopping at Hartford, Warrington BQ, EARLESTOWN & NEWTON-LE-WILLOWS (!), Wigan and Preston.
With the changes Virgin have done, the ex-XC services offer the only adequate services to Crewe, which is ridiculous, AND there should be more stops at Stafford, as the latter appears to have been seriously down-graded in Virgin's opinion.
I have a series of proposed stopping patterns for all Virgin services, but they're on another thread, so I won't repeat it here.

 

[ukrob]

Well I am prepared to go against the grain and say I'm glad trains I use don't stop at Crewe anymore. I'm glad other stops have been cut out, and I'm glad that I can get from A to B quicker because of it. You can't please everyone all the time.

 

[Pumbaa]

Well I am prepared to go against the grain and say I'm glad trains I use don't stop at Crewe anymore. I'm glad other stops have been cut out, and I'm glad that I can get from A to B quicker because of it. You can't please everyone all the time.

So am I.

So saying, today the 1855 from Man Piccadilly via Crewe had 8 FC passengers. TM reckoned that was higher than average. Perhaps 3tph isn't quite kicking off as planned?

On the other hand, I also sampled a Glasgow - Carlisle - Oxenholme - Preston - London service today (1M16 I think), and I loved it. Lack of stops was brilliant, and only 2 hours PRE - EUS was lush.

 

[me123]

On the other hand, I also sampled a Glasgow - Carlisle - Oxenholme - Preston - London service today (1M16 I think), and I loved it. Lack of stops was brilliant, and only 2 hours PRE - EUS was lush.

The service is great for Glasgow. It brings rail travel up to par with air travel; it's finally a viable option. Non stop from Warrington is great, although adding more stops at Crewe should be considered in my opinion. I think the benefits would outweigh the small loss of 5 minutes; what's an extra five minutes on a 4-and-a-half hour journey? The additional journey opportunities would be worth it if you ask me.

However, a lot of Glaswegians don't appreciate the work. Consecutive weekend closures are understandably a pain, with a lot of Lockerbie-Oxenholme blockades as of late. Buses aren't fun, I'm sure you'll agree, and the view taken by many is that they'd endure the longer journey to avoid the engineering work. They seem to forget that the track needs renewed anyway. The fact that the benefits are already being seen on weekday services (especially the fantastic 16:30 London Euston-Glasgow Central calling Preston only), to me, is worth the additional work that's being carried out.

 

[The Planner]

5 minutes is likely to be a path into Euston beleive it or not.

 

[tbtc]

Whilst everywhere off the main line wants a direct service, it'd at least improve things if long distance services were co-ordinated to provide a "turn up and go" frequency from interchange stations.

For example, on the WCML, could you have a twenty minute Euston service to/from Crewe (one Chester, one Preston and one Manchester via Wilmslow)?

Similarly, if Doncaster had that kind of frequency, there'd be less pressure to have London trains to/from (say) Grimsby.

Personally, if there were enough units, I'd be looking at solving the Warrington problem by a "semi fast" Euston - Preston service, which would co-ordinate with the Euston - Chester service to give two trains an hour to stations like Rugby/ Nuneaton/ Stafford, and with the Birmingham - Scotland voyager service to give a half hourly Stafford - Preston service.

Of course, whether there's the resources or paths is another story - with 9 Virgin tph already, I doubt it.

 

[87015]

However, a lot of Glaswegians don't appreciate the work. Consecutive weekend closures are understandably a pain, with a lot of Lockerbie-Oxenholme blockades as of late. Buses aren't fun, I'm sure you'll agree, and the view taken by many is that they'd endure the longer journey to avoid the engineering work. They seem to forget that the track needs renewed anyway. The fact that the benefits are already being seen on weekday services (especially the fantastic 16:30 London Euston-Glasgow Central calling Preston only), to me, is worth the additional work that's being carried out.

Euston-Glasgows have always been busier on Saturdays than most weekdays - they must have lost a hell of a lot of passengers with the continual piddling about over the last decade or so. The Preston-Glasgow stretch does seem to have taken more than its fair share of blockades and thats saying something given what we have down this end.

Lockerbie-Preston on a bus is a joke, why is it too difficult to drag them over the S&C/GSW, movements which have gone down hugely in the last five years. It can't be put down to Pendo/Voyager rubbish surely; just a lack of effort seems most likely - if they can do Chilterns why not diversions up North?

 

[me123]

To be fair, the GSW has also had engineering recently, with the redoubling work closing a lot of the line at the same time as the Lockerbie blockades. If anything, that's silly but not Virgin's fault. And there could well be another reason that they don't do this. I can appreciate why this would lose them customers, but 5 years ago people travelling to London could take GNER as the fastest option due to the poor WCML journey times. Travelling to the Lake District and North West England would obviously be a pain, though.

In response to an earlier comment RE: "NXEC North of Edinburgh is pointless"; I just picked my father up from Motherwell coming off the 18:23 arrival (dep KGX 13:00). He joined at York, and said that the heaviest loading was Edinburgh-Motherwell. He estimated 80% full. I know this is normal. I do therefore think there's a case for hourly Edinburgh-Glasgow via Carstairs in peak times, probably best provided by a mixture of XC and NXEC. This is also proof for me that London services provide important links through other places and are valuable; therefore removing direct services to London is also likely to impact local travel. At the same time, in denying direct links to London you're also denying potential local services which could prove valuable.

 

[Waverley125]

I agree with some of what's being said on here, in that long distance services should be reduced stop, particularly with LKX-Glasgow/Edinburgh/Aberdeen calling only Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle.

However, there also has to be a balance, in that quadrupling will have to be to a minimum 110, and slow services extended. At the moment, cutting stops on NXEC services would have to be compensated for by giving HT extra paths (which would result in the need to reopen the 3rd bores at Gasworks & Copenhagen) to serve Retford, Newark & Grantham.

I think the best way to do it is to rate stops by their distance, and this would be far easier if the ECML was only being used my one main operator. That way, Leeds could get 1 'fast', 1 'semi' and 1'stopper' of the planned 3tph, Aberdeen & Glasgow would alternate on 1tph, with minimal stops, Edinburgh would get slightly more, and Newcastle/Sunderland slightly more than that.

e.g.

London-Aberdeen (1tp2h): Pboro, York, Newcastle, Waverley, Kirkcaldy, Dundee

London-Edinburgh (1tph): Pboro, Donc, York, Darl, Newc, Berwick

London-Sunderland (1tp2h): Pboro, Donc, York, Thirsk, Nort, Mbro, Stock, Hpool

London-Newcastle (1tp2h): Pboro, Donc, York, Thirsk, Nort, Darl, Durh

London-Bradford (1tph): Pboro, Donc, Leeds, Shipley

London-Harrogate (1tph): Pboro, Nwark, Donc, WWest, Leeds

London-Skipton (1tph):Pboro, Gran, Newk, Donc, WWest, Leeds, Ship, Keighley

London-Hull (1tph): Stev, Pboro, Gran, Newk, Ret, Donc, Selb, brough.

Hul services would use the fast lines to peterborough, then the slow lines to Doncaster, as would Skipton services. Then everyone's happy. Leeds gets 3tph, Scotland 2tph. Small stations all have a direct service to london.

The only other thing I'd like to see is the use of Desiro's on the North coast between Newcastle & Edinburgh, not a 'local service' as such, but certainly one with more stops e.g. Cramlington, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar, Prestonpans, Musselburgh.

Possibly also a full 'local' between Berwick & Newcastle, calling all stations.

All told this would still only give 5 tph over the line (2 NXEC, 1 AXC, 1 FSR? Newc-Edin, 1 NT Berwick-Newc)

 

[MCR247]

I agree with some of what's being said on here, in that long distance services should be reduced stop, particularly with LKX-Glasgow/Edinburgh/Aberdeen calling only Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle.

However, there also has to be a balance, in that quadrupling will have to be to a minimum 110, and slow services extended. At the moment, cutting stops on NXEC services would have to be compensated for by giving HT extra paths (which would result in the need to reopen the 3rd bores at Gasworks & Copenhagen) to serve Retford, Newark & Grantham.

I think the best way to do it is to rate stops by their distance, and this would be far easier if the ECML was only being used my one main operator. That way, Leeds could get 1 'fast', 1 'semi' and 1'stopper' of the planned 3tph, Aberdeen & Glasgow would alternate on 1tph, with minimal stops, Edinburgh would get slightly more, and Newcastle/Sunderland slightly more than that.

e.g.

London-Aberdeen (1tp2h): Pboro, York, Newcastle, Waverley, Kirkcaldy, Dundee

London-Edinburgh (1tph): Pboro, Donc, York, Darl, Newc, Berwick

London-Sunderland (1tp2h): Pboro, Donc, York, Thirsk, Nort, Mbro, Stock, Hpool

London-Newcastle (1tp2h): Pboro, Donc, York, Thirsk, Nort, Darl, Durh

London-Bradford (1tph): Pboro, Donc, Leeds, Shipley

London-Harrogate (1tph): Pboro, Nwark, Donc, WWest, Leeds

London-Skipton (1tph):Pboro, Gran, Newk, Donc, WWest, Leeds, Ship, Keighley

London-Hull (1tph): Stev, Pboro, Gran, Newk, Ret, Donc, Selb, brough.

Hul services would use the fast lines to peterborough, then the slow lines to Doncaster, as would Skipton services. Then everyone's happy. Leeds gets 3tph, Scotland 2tph. Small stations all have a direct service to london.

The only other thing I'd like to see is the use of Desiro's on the North coast between Newcastle & Edinburgh, not a 'local service' as such, but certainly one with more stops e.g. Cramlington, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar, Prestonpans, Musselburgh.

Possibly also a full 'local' between Berwick & Newcastle, calling all stations.

All told this would still only give 5 tph over the line (2 NXEC, 1 AXC, 1 FSR? Newc-Edin, 1 NT Berwick-Newc)

So you'd ditch the inverness train! I say thats a bad move.
I dont think leeds needs 3tph. At least 1tph should start at Leeds

 

[thefab444]

I notice you refuse to make anything not stop at Peterborough - IMO the fast Scotland service should be non stop to Doncaster or York, and the Aberdeen has a very strange calling pattern north of Edinburgh!

Harrogate hardly warrants an hourly service to London, although it should at least get a return of the current morning direct service. This also calls at Horsforth between Leeds and Harrogate. Same can be said of Skipton, but I agree that Bradford should get something more frequent, if only to keep out these Open Access monkeys.

 

[Waverley125]

yeah but the 1 train a day can't be timetabled in without a proper timetable sheet. I'm trying to write a clockface timetable off the cuff here, work with me.

 

[43106]

As regards the ECML, have a look at a thread titled "INTEGRATING THE EAST COAST". It's repeating a lot of what's being said, and probably will be said.

 

[Waverley125]

NXEC's plan is for leeds to get 3tph. That might as well be extended to Harrogate, if only to clear the platform space at leeds. And IIRC it doesn't call Horsforth, but the station is on the timetable. Same with stations north of Edinburgh as well.

Extending the service to Skipton will give much better connectivity to Airedale, and allow a second connection from passengers from Bradford at Shipley. This crushes the case for a Bradford-Kirkgate-London service, and will help protect revenue on the route from Yorkshire, as well as giving Bradford the service it deserves, which will aid economic recovery in the city.

And I've removed the more 'local' stations on Aberdeen-Edinburgh. All those have a good FSR service, and are very small towns. Can't really say they need a direct service from London, and removing them would knock several minutes off journey times.

 

[me123]

And I've removed the more 'local' stations on Aberdeen-Edinburgh. All those have a good FSR service, and are very small towns. Can't really say they need a direct service from London, and removing them would knock several minutes off journey times.

The only thing is that, at the moment, NXEC fills in some of Scotrail's gaps, probably allowing longer trains elsewhere or for the Dundee local service. In reality, the stops are needed to maintain the service to the stations. There's currently (NB) an Aberdeen train at ~xx:30 and a Dundee train at ~xx:00. The 10:26 and 18:30 services are provided by NXEC, where there is a gap in Scotrail's service provision. BY removing some stops, particularly Leuchars and those North of Dundee, you'd actually be denying a service to passengers at these stations.

However, removing some local stops South of Dundee would be viable. I'd say that only Leuchars would benefit from the service, for both holidaymakers and the University at St. Anderew's. Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing are well served by local trains, and Inverkeithing has that annoying short platform to boot! Also, I don't think all trains need to serve Stonehaven, although I don't really know too much about the local community to justify this axe.

 

[MCR247]

NXEC's plan is for leeds to get 3tph. That might as well be extended to Harrogate, if only to clear the platform space at leeds. And IIRC it doesn't call Horsforth, but the station is on the timetable. Same with stations north of Edinburgh as well.

Extending the service to Skipton will give much better connectivity to Airedale, and allow a second connection from passengers from Bradford at Shipley. This crushes the case for a Bradford-Kirkgate-London service, and will help protect revenue on the route from Yorkshire, as well as giving Bradford the service it deserves, which will aid economic recovery in the city.

And I've removed the more 'local' stations on Aberdeen-Edinburgh. All those have a good FSR service, and are very small towns. Can't really say they need a direct service from London, and removing them would knock several minutes off journey times.

Leeds should have 1tph starting there, because then: Quite a few passengers would get on north of Leeds. By the time it gets to leeds, it would be quite busy, and NXEC reserve most seats (in my experiences) and some leeds passengers might be left with standing room.
Anyway, dont trains N of Leeds have to be HSTs? I'd have

1tph : Leeds
1tph: Bradford
1tp2h: Harrogate
1tp2h: Skipton. Leaving leeds with 2tph. A simalar case is Virgin with New St trains, 1tph extended, and 2tph not.

 

[Waverley125]

Skipton & Harrogate services would at present be HSTs, but an upgrade of wiring would allow 225s through to Skipton. I'd like to see the Harrogate line wired through to Knaresborough, which would allow 225s to be used on all West Yorkshire services.

I agree leeds should have northboound NXEC services to Scotland-maybe Glasgow Central services should be routed via Leeds? With the big gap in journey times that already exists i think the benefits to be accrued are quite great. Again, this would require wiring Neville Hill-Church Fenton.

Only problem would be when XC/FSR/NT wise up, get hold of some 22Xs or 180s and start running Leeds-Glasgow Central via the S&C, the saving on journey times will be huge.

Then again, the opportunity to do the S&C in an HST...

Oh, and that would still give leeds 3tph, what NXEC wants, as BFSq services go via leeds. That said, i think alternating Skipton/Harrogate would be a runner, making that service the stopper, the Leeds terminating service the Semi and Bradford the fast, going via Hambleton.

 

[MCR247]

Skipton & Harrogate services would at present be HSTs, but an upgrade of wiring would allow 225s through to Skipton. I'd like to see the Harrogate line wired through to Knaresborough, which would allow 225s to be used on all West Yorkshire services.

I agree leeds should have northboound NXEC services to Scotland-maybe Glasgow Central services should be routed via Leeds? With the big gap in journey times that already exists i think the benefits to be accrued are quite great. Again, this would require wiring Neville Hill-Church Fenton.

Only problem would be when XC/FSR/NT wise up, get hold of some 22Xs or 180s and start running Leeds-Glasgow Central via the S&C, the saving on journey times will be huge.

Then again, the opportunity to do the S&C in an HST...

Oh, and that would still give leeds 3tph, what NXEC wants, as BFSq services go via leeds. That said, i think alternating Skipton/Harrogate would be a runner, making that service the stopper, the Leeds terminating service the Semi and Bradford the fast, going via Hambleton.

Glasgow Cntrl services via Leeds?! Do you KNOW how much longer it takes via Leeds && York.

 

[Waverley125]

yes, about 45 mins-1 hr on top of present journey times. But the difference between the WCML & ECML is already so great that I'd imagine very few London-Glasgow passsengers travel NXEC, while North of York passengers will be unaffected as the service will take just as long.

Otherwise, run them as separate services. But that's the only place NXEC would serve north of Leeds without further electrification. Running to Newcastle would be a waste if time as XC & TPE already do it.

 

[matchmaker]

So you'd ditch the inverness train! I say thats a bad move.
I dont think leeds needs 3tph. At least 1tph should start at Leeds

Any time I've been on the "Highland Chieftain" north of Edinburgh it has been very well loaded - it is the only direct (daytime) service connecting Inverness, Perth & Stirling with London - and these three Scottish cities have a combined population of at least 120,000.

 

[MCR247]

yes, about 45 mins-1 hr on top of present journey times. But the difference between the WCML & ECML is already so great that I'd imagine very few London-Glasgow passsengers travel NXEC, while North of York passengers will be unaffected as the service will take just as long.

Otherwise, run them as separate services. But that's the only place NXEC would serve north of Leeds without further electrification. Running to Newcastle would be a waste if time as XC & TPE already do it.

Yes, but Glasgow services are currently fast between york & Kings Cross, so people travel on this opposed to Newcastles. Of course GC is quicker.

 

[me123]

yes, about 45 mins-1 hr on top of present journey times. But the difference between the WCML & ECML is already so great that I'd imagine very few London-Glasgow passsengers travel NXEC, while North of York passengers will be unaffected as the service will take just as long.

Not worth it. A lot of people would want to travel South to Peterborough, so you'd be impacting them. At times, half the Edinburgh trains are from Glasgow, so you'd be inconveniencing passengers from Edinburgh, Newcastle, Darlington, York... And Edinburgh already has XC services to Leeds, often running just behind Glasgow trains. Even then, I've made a two minute transfer at York from Platform 3-Platform 4 onto a Leeds train. It's not feasible; whilst there's little direct travel to Leeds at the moment, the connections are good enough if you ask me. Also, quite often people travel NXEC. I know someone who doesn't like the tilting down the WCML (it makes them nauseous). Motherwell passengers also often get good AP deals to KGX. Glasgow-London via Edinburgh may not have the highest loadings, but it is used as an alternative to Virgin by some.

Aren't Glasgow Trains planning to go Glasgow-Leeds at some point via the S&C line? They claim it'll be running by 2009, but I have my doubts. If they go ahead, it will be a valuable and well used link I'm sure. Definitely a better option than diverting trains via Leeds anyway.

 

[MCR247]

Skipton & Harrogate services would at present be HSTs, but an upgrade of wiring would allow 225s through to Skipton. I'd like to see the Harrogate line wired through to Knaresborough, which would allow 225s to be used on all West Yorkshire services.

Do trains to Harrogate & Skipton services need to reverse at Leeds? 'Cos if what you said was to happen, would it be possible to make Leeds trains going to Harrogate/Skipton use the line where you leave donny towards york and go off on the line that is from Selby - Leeds, sorry about the poor descripton, but its also modeled on MSTS (ECE Part 3).

 

[tbtc]

Do trains to Harrogate & Skipton services need to reverse at Leeds? 'Cos if what you said was to happen, would it be possible to make Leeds trains going to Harrogate/Skipton use the line where you leave donny towards york and go off on the line that is from Selby - Leeds, sorry about the poor descripton, but its also modeled on MSTS (ECE Part 3).

Depends on the Hambleton Curve; would allow circular running too (London - Doncaster - Hambleton Curve - Leeds - Wakefield - Doncaster - London), meaning the 225 wouldn't take up as much platform space/ time at Leeds.

 

[Waverley125]

I agree with everything that's been said, but I'm skeptical about NXEC running Leeds-Scotland services. IMO it'd be much better running to Aberdeen as a completely separate service to the london train, but whether they'd want to use HSTs for this is debatable.

And yes, the Leeds-Glasgow via S&C trains will be very well used. Hopefully we'll get 22Xs or HST which will provide good times and good environments, as well as great views over the line. Furthermore, it's essential this service is in addition to the current service, not an extension. It only needs to call Shipley, Keighley, Skipton, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs & Motherwell.

 

[tbtc]

And yes, the Leeds-Glasgow via S&C trains will be very well used. Hopefully we'll get 22Xs or HST which will provide good times and good environments, as well as great views over the line. Furthermore, it's essential this service is in addition to the current service, not an extension. It only needs to call Shipley, Keighley, Skipton, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Carstairs & Motherwell.

There was a Arriva Trains Northern service that did this extension to Glasgow, but a 156 would struggle to keep up to WCML speeds these days!

However, running it non stop from Skipton to Carlisle? You'd need a couple of stops in between, like Settle and Appleby...

Maybe a "fast" S&C extension to Glasgow every two hours, dovetailing with the existing "slow" S&C service between Leeds and Carlisle, and the existing TPEX bi-hourly service north of Carlisle?

 

[whoshotjimmi]

In my opinion, there being a service beats there not being a service. Before Hull Trains, there was one service a day - now there are 8. Before GC, there was nothing. Now there are 3.

It is ridiculous to complain when extra services are being sought. Why is it stupid to have more services? If I were a resident of Hull, I would be very glad of the extra services. Similarly, if I were a resident of Skipton, I would be completely chuffed at getting a few more trains a day.

Ok, some of the ideas put about on this thread have been a bit wacky - there is no way that Skipton requires 1 tph. But, the fact that there would be some degree of service is surely much better than having nothing at all?

The thread title asks if every Tom, Dick and Harry town in England needs a connection to London. Maybe not. But there are many places in the UK that suffer from a lack of service - not only to London, but to other places. This is the underlying issue. There is no doubt that a direct service to London can be well patriated and would be of benefit to the places it serves. If services to London are introduced more widely, then I for one will be pleased. The next step would be to identify further service improvements that could be made, perhaps away from the capital.

Let's get the services in place, give passengers (the people who matter) more flexibility and choice and then set about improving things further.