London Northwestern Railway announces "Destination Manchester"

[JonathanH]

It would be a better use of resources to slow down one of the Avanti hourly services and make that a cheap option.

This slow = cheap point needs to be overcome. Manchester to Euston 3tph really operates best with a consistent journey time.

A slower train isn't necessarily cheaper to operate, although there could be some energy saving, as it requires more staff and units to operate each cycle, so why does it translate to a cheaper fare? I can understand a train with higher capacity having cheaper fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This slow = cheap point needs to be overcome. Manchester to Euston 3tph really operates best with a consistent journey time.

A slower train isn't necessarily cheaper to operate, although there could be some energy saving, as it requires more staff and units to operate each cycle, so why does it translate to a cheaper fare? I can understand a train with higher capacity having cheaper fares.

In WMT's case it's because you're putting extra passengers onto a (longer version of a) train that operates anyway. A Trent Valley stopper is needed, but if only the Any Permitted fares existed 4-car would be ample.

 

[Russel]

But at other times they're pretty empty. The solution is surely to only offer cheap advanced tickets from Manchester for the services that aren't as busy.

Cheap advance tickets aren't the reason behind the overcrowding though, the walk up fares are much better value than the Avanti offering.

I use the LNWR Trent Valley service into Euston a lot, whenever I've looked at advance tickets, the difference is usually only a couple of pound.

 

[Energy]

..

Weren't the number of 730s ordered before Covid came along with the resulting cuts to the long term timetable (pretty sure Birmingham - Northampton was 3tph, maybe even Northampton to London all day 3tph) which probably have freed up rolling stock?

It was a different order, with some 350s working WMR services. The joined-up London - Northampton - Birmingham - Liverpool service was unreliable so has changed back to being split.

Original 730 Order
29 x 5 car with 3+2 seating for LNWR London - Milton Keynes/Tring
16 x 5 car with 2+2 seating for LNWR Trent Valley
36 x 3 car for WMR Cross City

350s would have worked at least some of the Chase Line.

Current 730 Order
36 x 5 car with 2+2 Seating for LNWR London - Milton Keynes/Tring, Birmingham - Liverpool, some Trent Valley.
48 x 3 car for WMR Cross City & Chase Line

 

[JonathanH]

In WMT's case it's because you're putting extra passengers onto a (longer version of a) train that operates anyway. A Trent Valley stopper is needed, but if only the Any Permitted fares existed 4-car would be ample.

Yes, although I guess it would actually be helpful to have 8-car for the London to Milton Keynes bit even following a future fare simplification. As you say 4-car would be ample north of there if it wasn't for the TOC specific fares and low pricing of advances.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They have SDO though. Wouldn't be the only station where SDO is used at the origin/terminus.

10-cars at Newton le Willows and/or Earlestown would be interesting...

Crewe - Airport could replace the Northern stopper and it would also serve Stoke.

These are bids for Open Access services - you can't mix them up with DfT-spec services.
In fact the whole idea of Euston-Victoria with a change of status at Crewe seems bizarre.
In the end I expect GBR will decide, with folk like Andy Burnham breathing down their neck - he'll want the services but not to pay for them.
It also crosses the supposed GBR Regional boundaries (London/West Midlands/North West).
Overall, a nice spanner for LNR to have lobbed into the GBR works.

 

[bramling]

This slow = cheap point needs to be overcome. Manchester to Euston 3tph really operates best with a consistent journey time.

A slower train isn't necessarily cheaper to operate, although there could be some energy saving, as it requires more staff and units to operate each cycle, so why does it translate to a cheaper fare? I can understand a train with higher capacity having cheaper fares.

These slower journeys are only cheap because they are taking the opportunity to fill up (sometimes behind capacity) a train which would be running anyway but serving a local market.

Hope Valley is the same. The stopping service essentially has to run in order to serve the local stations, so it’s a case of let’s flood it with people for through journeys, and turn a blind eye to any overcrowding issues that arise. In the case of west coast it’s all the more irritating when there are 9 and 11 car intercity trains running around with ample spare capacity.

The Trent Valley situation is better nowadays with 8-car trains being more common, but in LM days when everything was a 4-car it was unhelpful.

We have elements of it on GN with Peterborough, where people use GTR to get to London. Okay on the (less common nowadays than a few years ago) occasions when there are extra fast services operated by GTR, but unhelpful at other times.

 

[Russel]

Wonder if we'll see 12 car operation on the Trent Valley before these proposed services start...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wonder if we'll see 12 car operation on the Trent Valley before these proposed services start...

10.730 is the idea I believe.

 

[Kite159]

Wonder if we'll see 12 car operation on the Trent Valley before these proposed services start...

12 coaches on the Trent Valley already happens at weekends. (Photo shows the rear of a 12 coach 350 departing Lichfield in April)

 

[yorksrob]

This slow = cheap point needs to be overcome. Manchester to Euston 3tph really operates best with a consistent journey time.

A slower train isn't necessarily cheaper to operate, although there could be some energy saving, as it requires more staff and units to operate each cycle, so why does it translate to a cheaper fare? I can understand a train with higher capacity having cheaper fares.

It's about what passengers require. Being slow just means that premium companies can cream off those who really are willing to cough up to go quicker.

 

[Russel]

12 coaches on the Trent Valley already happens at weekends. (Photo shows the rear of a 12 coach 350 departing Lichfield in April)

When did that start, I last used it on a Saturday in March and it was still 8 car then?

 

[bramling]

It's about what passengers require. Being slow just means that premium companies can cream off those who really are willing to cough up to go quicker.

How many people actually *want* a slower journey? Some will trade it off over price for sure, however in virtually all cases it’s still a sub-optimal outcome.

In any case it seems like it won’t be long before these premium operators don’t really exist in a meaningful sense. It’ll just be different cheeks of the same backside.

 

[HSTEd]

This slow = cheap point needs to be overcome. Manchester to Euston 3tph really operates best with a consistent journey time.

A slower train isn't necessarily cheaper to operate, although there could be some energy saving, as it requires more staff and units to operate each cycle, so why does it translate to a cheaper fare? I can understand a train with higher capacity having cheaper fares.

It's an attempt to segment the market to cream off more money from high-paying business travelers.

The problem, of course, being that high-paying business travelers are not a particularly voluminous flow these days.

Personally I would prefer the market segmentation to be abandoned and just set pricing so the trains are full across the entire day.
The railway is a bulk passenger transport system, the business motto has to be "pile it high and sell it cheap".

 

[yorksrob]

How many people actually *want* a slower journey? Some will trade it off over price for sure, however in virtually all cases it’s still a sub-optimal outcome.

In any case it seems like it won’t be long before these premium operators don’t really exist in a meaningful sense. It’ll just be different cheeks of the same backside.

People want lower prices above all else.

The problem is that we might not have premium services, however the DfT as it stands will want to make sure we have premium prices.

And how, exactly, are you going to re-form 350s as 6-car sets?

You could split wan set and permanently couple each end to another unit. Seems to have been done with EMU's and DMU's since time immemorial.

 

[43096]

You could split wan set and permanently couple each end to another unit. Seems to have been done with EMU's and DMU's since time immemorial.

Could you? So you know the transformer is rated for powering an extra vehicle? And once you've worked that out, you've worked out the cabling to connect to the half-set is viable?

 

[James H]

These are bids for Open Access services - you can't mix them up with DfT-spec services.
In fact the whole idea of Euston-Victoria with a change of status at Crewe seems bizarre.

This is not an Open Access proposal. There is no way LNR would have put these plans forward without DfT sanction. And the proposal page explicitly draws a distinction between this proposal and OA models

 

[HSTEd]

You could split wan set and permanently couple each end to another unit. Seems to have been done with EMU's and DMU's since time immemorial.

Modern trains are not like the multiple units of yore.

They are designed with fancy computer systems and sets are integrated to the degree that they can't do that.

 

[JonathanH]

People want lower prices above all else.

The problem is that we might not have premium services, however the DfT as it stands will want to make sure we have premium prices.

Everyone wants to pay less for things they want to do. It is a natural sentiment.

What isn't so clear is the value different people place on travel. There will be some people who genuinely believe that £100 is the reasonable price for the value of travelling 200 miles each way from London to Manchester in just over two hours, especially if it is something they only do once in a while. That us why the trains remain busy even though people say they are expensive.

 

[craigybagel]

You could split wan set and permanently couple each end to another unit. Seems to have been done with EMU's and DMU's since time immemorial.

Modern trains are not like the multiple units of yore.

They are designed with fancy computer systems and sets are integrated to the degree that they can't do that.

It starts to get very awkward when you have to take into account which cars have traction motors, compressors, pantographs, toilets..... It wouldn't be that far off rebuilding the whole train

 

[yorksrob]

Modern trains are not like the multiple units of yore.

They are designed with fancy computer systems and sets are integrated to the degree that they can't do that.

One would hope they could reboot it.

Everyone wants to pay less for things they want to do. It is a natural sentiment.

What isn't so clear is the value different people place on travel. There will be some people who genuinely believe that £100 is the reasonable price for the value of travelling 200 miles each way from London to Manchester in just over two hours, especially if it is something they only do once in a while. That us why the trains remain busy even though people say they are expensive.

We know that there are people who will place a very high value on travel. The whole industry already seems to be geared towards these sorts of people, with 1st class, high walk-on fares etc. That market is already well catered for..

We also know, from the popularity of LNR services, that a significant proportion of the travelling public value the ability to travel when they need to at a reasonable price and who aren't necessarily fussed about getting there at speed. This market is woefully underserved generally.

 

[Kite159]

When did that start, I last used it on a Saturday in March and it was still 8 car then?

Only selected trains are 12 coaches at the moment.

----

LNR are useful for those passengers whom don't care about being as fast as Avanti, but care about having reasonably priced flexible tickets to allow for a more flexible journey. I know some operators don't care much for flexible tickets, preferring to run an airline style model of mostly all advance fares to make more money by hiking up the cost of popular trains but for those whose plans are not fixed in stone the flexible tickets are handy.

 

[The Middle]

There is no way LNR would have put these plans forward without DfT sanction

Which would be rather troubling considering we are in an election period.

 

[bramling]

One would hope they could reboot it.



We know that there are people who will place a very high value on travel. The whole industry already seems to be geared towards these sorts of people, with 1st class, high walk-on fares etc. That market is already well catered for..

We also know, from the popularity of LNR services, that a significant proportion of the travelling public value the ability to travel when they need to at a reasonable price and who aren't necessarily fussed about getting there at speed. This market is woefully underserved generally.

It’s all very well saying it’s underserved, but in a lot of cases cheap options simply won’t wash their face financially.

The LNwR ones only work because they are able to essentially flood-fill already-existing services, and even then it abstracts revenue from the faster options, so one needs to be very sure that it is generating *new* journeys which wouldn’t be made at the higher prices. Likewise that the crowded trains don’t cause a loss of revenue from people who would have made intermediate journeys but are put off by the more crowded trains.

Is isn’t reasonable to expect a budget option for every flow as the economics just don’t stack up, especially as the industry already does yield management by way of advances, the theory being that every passenger pays the maximum price that they individually are willing & able to pay.

And we certainly don’t want a situation where expense is required to provide for capacity enhancements whilst more expensive services are running around with plenty of spare capacity. The west coast route modernisation cost a fortune as we all know, and it’s just not a good outcome of that investment (i.e. all our tax) to have Pendolinos running around with spare capacity.

 

[LUYMun]

Plan would be to couple and uncouple at Crewe with only 5 carriages carrying on to Manchester. The 5 Car left behind would then be shunted across for the departure 1 hour+ later

Seems to be a waste having five coaches sat at Crewe for that duration. In that time the unit could've gone south to London with another (formerly split) 5 coach coming up to couple onto the incoming Manchester, and repeat to maintain an hourly frequency north of there.

 

[gsc777]

London Northwestern Railway have recently released an announcement on their website detailing a proposal to extend services to Manchester via Warrington in light of the cancellation of HS2’s northern leg.

Website with full details: https://www.londonnorthwesternrailway.co.uk/travel-information/whats-new/manchester

Not directly related but it's been clear for a while now that more Manchester—London services are in demand. Paired with a desire to avoid the congested WCML wherever possible, what other options could be explored?

Is there any potential, for example, for services via the MML and the B'ham—Leicester Line, branching off the MML just before Leicester, circumvening South Wigston and speeding on to join the WCML at Nuneaton to continue its journey? Or any other ideas (electric or otherwise) via Chiltern, the East Midlands or even the ECML (extending the Leeds/Bradford LNER services, perhaps)?

Also is there any way LNWR can maximise their avoidance of the WCML? Since it's likely to be a stopping service anyway (ain't no way they're offering fast services like Avanti even if there was capacity), perhaps making use of the Northampton Loop Line, the Coventry—Nuneaton Line, or even the Stafford—Manchester Line avoiding Crewe (and even avoiding Stafford if they branch off the line and make a beeline straight for Stoke-on-Trent), heading to Piccadilly via Macclesfield?

 

[Jack Hay]

Not directly related but it's been clear for a while now that more Manchester—London services are in demand. Paired with a desire to avoid the congested WCML wherever possible, what other options could be explored?

Is there any potential, for example, for services via the MML and the B'ham—Leicester Line, branching off the MML just before Leicester, circumvening South Wigston and speeding on to join the WCML at Nuneaton to continue its journey? Or any other ideas (electric or otherwise) via Chiltern, the East Midlands or even the ECML (extending the Leeds/Bradford LNER services, perhaps)?

Also is there any way LNWR can maximise their avoidance of the WCML? Since it's likely to be a stopping service anyway (ain't no way they're offering fast services like Avanti even if there was capacity), perhaps making use of the Northampton Loop Line, the Coventry—Nuneaton Line, or even the Stafford—Manchester Line avoiding Crewe (and even avoiding Stafford if they branch off the line and make a beeline straight for Stoke-on-Trent), heading to Piccadilly via Macclesfield?

Those are mostly very slow options that don't serve all the places the LNR London to Crewe service presently serves. It has been noticeable how the current service has been busier since it stopped running via the Stoke loop and the Northampton loop, which cost about 30 minutes added together, suggesting that journey time does matter to some extent. Some of your suggestions are actually congested routes themselves, such as the Stockport to Manchester line, which you'd use if approaching via Macclesfield.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s all very well saying it’s underserved, but in a lot of cases cheap options simply won’t wash their face financially.

The LNwR ones only work because they are able to essentially flood-fill already-existing services, and even then it abstracts revenue from the faster options, so one needs to be very sure that it is generating *new* journeys which wouldn’t be made at the higher prices. Likewise that the crowded trains don’t cause a loss of revenue from people who would have made intermediate journeys but are put off by the more crowded trains.

Is isn’t reasonable to expect a budget option for every flow as the economics just don’t stack up, especially as the industry already does yield management by way of advances, the theory being that every passenger pays the maximum price that they individually are willing & able to pay.

And we certainly don’t want a situation where expense is required to provide for capacity enhancements whilst more expensive services are running around with plenty of spare capacity. The west coast route modernisation cost a fortune as we all know, and it’s just not a good outcome of that investment (i.e. all our tax) to have Pendolinos running around with spare capacity.

Well, the other side of the coin is that we accept that those Pendolinos running around with spare capacity are overpriced.

The state is paying a lot of money to run the railway. Is running empty trains around in the hope that a business traveller with open pockets will turn up, a good use of this heavily funded capacity ?

Is the balance right to start off with. Do Manchester's travelling public need three premium priced trains an hour with one LNR type operation, or two premium priced trains and two LNR's.

The fundamental problem is that we have an Establishment in Westminster/Whitehall that just doesn't seem to understand the value of ordinary people being able to get around and see the railway as something that they can't get out of providing, hence why they're happy to see the economic potential of those untravelled journeys, represented by the empty seats on the pendolino, lost so that they can try to make back the basic cost of providing the service, through the high paying business traveller.

 

[bramling]

Well, the other side of the coin is that we accept that those Pendolinos running around with spare capacity are overpriced.

The state is paying a lot of money to run the railway. Is running empty trains around in the hope that a business traveller with open pockets will turn up, a good use of this heavily funded capacity ?

Is the balance right to start off with. Do Manchester's travelling public need three premium priced trains an hour with one LNR type operation, or two premium priced trains and two LNR's.

The fundamental problem is that we have an Establishment in Westminster/Whitehall that just doesn't seem to understand the value of ordinary people being able to get around and see the railway as something that they can't get out of providing, hence why they're happy to see the economic potential of those untravelled journeys, represented by the empty seats on the pendolino, lost so that they can try to make back the basic cost of providing the service, through the high paying business traveller.

No disagreement here on any of that. In a country which is overpopulated to the point that significant amount of infrastructure are always uncomfortably crowded, we should be making use of that infrastructure in the most optimum way, which clearly isn’t the case if we’re able to leave elements of it under-utilised.

Same with something like the M6 Toll. It’s quite ridiculous really that we have an extremely congested section of motorway running through an urban area (with all the issues inherent with that), yet the toll road is essentially under-utilised because the toll discourages a proportion of potential users.

(Having said that, from a personal perspective the toll road suits me as it offers a much more pleasant driving experience, so in that sense I’m not knocking it, but from an overall infrastructure point of view it’s madness).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The toll I'd say is comparable to First Class, which of course WMT has abolished.