Main revenue flows on the WCML

[Parjon]

The running of a 2nd Liverpool service was a reason for the procurement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmm, will that make much difference? I just checked on Wikipedia, and it seems that 10 7-carriage electric class 807's plus 13 5-carriage bi-mode class 805's will be replacing 20 5-car Voyagers. That doesn't seem like much of a capacity increase, so I'm struggling to imagine that alone would allow a 2nd tph to Liverpool - which I imagine would require 5 additional trainsets to run?

It's a huge capacity increase. Voyagers are very space inefficient, 80x are very space efficient. So a double Voyager (most run in pairs) will be replaced by a 7 car 807. Thus the ten 807s would replace the entire Voyager fleet alone, let alone the 13 805s as well.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Hmm, will that make much difference? I just checked on Wikipedia, and it seems that 10 7-carriage electric class 807's plus 13 5-carriage bi-mode class 805's will be replacing 20 5-car Voyagers. That doesn't seem like much of a capacity increase, so I'm struggling to imagine that alone would allow a 2nd tph to Liverpool - which I imagine would require 5 additional trainsets to run?

Not sure what version of Wikipedia you're getting your numbers from, Avanti have 18 221s.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a huge capacity increase. Voyagers are very space inefficient, 80x are very space efficient. So a double Voyager (most run in pairs) will be replaced by a 7 car 807. Thus the ten 807s would replace the entire Voyager fleet alone, let alone the 13 805s as well.

Just to add, one 807 has almost the same number of seats as a 10 car double voyager.

 

[Krokodil]

View attachment 142070
Not sure what version of Wikipedia you're getting your numbers from, Avanti have 18 221s.

They used to have 20.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

They used to have 20.

Indeed, those two went into storage for a bit and now operate with Grand Central

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's a huge capacity increase. Voyagers are very space inefficient, 80x are very space efficient. So a double Voyager (most run in pairs) will be replaced by a 7 car 807. Thus the ten 807s would replace the entire Voyager fleet alone, let alone the 13 805s as well.

OK ta for the clarification.

 

[AJDesiro]

OK ta for the clarification.

It’s also worth noting that an 807 has 4 more seats in standard than a 9 car 390, while having a lower density interior (more bays). ~144m of a 9 car 390 is occupied by standard class accommodation, while slightly below ~143m of an 807 is occupied by standard class accommodation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It’s also worth noting that an 807 has 4 more seats in standard than a 9 car 390, while having a lower density interior (more bays). ~144m of a 9 car 390 is occupied by standard class accommodation, while slightly below ~143m of an 807 is occupied by standard class accommodation.

How is that possible? On those figures, you're saying the 807 has 4 more seats within a shorter length (143m vs 144m). That seems to imply a higher average density, not a lower one.

The 390s don't strike me as particularly space-inefficient: The accessible toilets each take up a fair bit of space but I doubt you'd want to not have them. The rest of the standard class coaches are entirely given over to seating or luggage space, apart from the shop. I guess if there were fewer 1st class carriages, you could get more seating in. And maybe you could pack a bit more in by making the seats thinner (higher density, again)? But is it really possible to get more seats into a shorter train without making it more cramped for passengers?

 

[tomuk]

How is that possible? On those figures, you're saying the 807 has 4 more seats within a shorter length (143m vs 144m). That seems to imply a higher average density, not a lower one.

The 390s don't strike me as particularly space-inefficient: The accessible toilets each take up a fair bit of space but I doubt you'd want to not have them. The rest of the standard class coaches are entirely given over to seating or luggage space, apart from the shop. I guess if there were fewer 1st class carriages, you could get more seating in. And maybe you could pack a bit more in by making the seats thinner (higher density, again)? But is it really possible to get more seats into a shorter train without making it more cramped for passengers?

Couple of reasons 80x carriages are longer than 390s or Voyagers this extra space at the end of carriages is used for toilets, equipment and bikes/ luggage freeing up most of the space between the doors for seating. Second 80x don't support tilting therefore there is less equipment required to be fitted on the train and as there is no tilt profile more space for equipment both under and on top of the carriages. On Pendos and Voyagers there is a lot of equipment mounted inside the coaches, like toilet tanks.

 

[AJDesiro]

How is that possible? On those figures, you're saying the 807 has 4 more seats within a shorter length (143m vs 144m). That seems to imply a higher average density, not a lower one.

The 390s don't strike me as particularly space-inefficient: The accessible toilets each take up a fair bit of space but I doubt you'd want to not have them. The rest of the standard class coaches are entirely given over to seating or luggage space, apart from the shop. I guess if there were fewer 1st class carriages, you could get more seating in. And maybe you could pack a bit more in by making the seats thinner (higher density, again)? But is it really possible to get more seats into a shorter train without making it more cramped for passengers?

They were rough measurements (6x24 & 5.5x26). An 807 has one accessible toilet in standard, while a 390/0 has two.

The Avanti 80X have a rather large amount of bays, with the standard, non driving, non buffet coaches having 10 bays of seating, with roughly 72 seats. Comparing this with other 80X, such as LNER’s, where the equivalent carriage has 8 bays, and 84 seats. The bays are also very well aligned to the windows on the 80X, with the equivalent bay legroom of first class on the original IETs.

Anyway, we’re veering off topic…

 

[Skie]

Looking at the linked PDF it seems this info has been removed (or I just can't see it in the 334 pages )

 

[deltic]

Looking at the linked PDF it seems this info has been removed (or I just can't see it in the 334 pages )

Yes the revenue section has been deleted, it used to have 340 pages! Someone has had their knuckles rapped for publishing data they shouldn't have.

 

[Krokodil]

Glad that I downloaded it when I had the chance. I'll peruse it properly later

 

[Adam Williams]

Oops, the original document has been captured by the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/2023083...al/West Coast South Strategic Advice 2023.pdf

 

[Parjon]

Yes the revenue section has been deleted, it used to have 340 pages! Someone has had their knuckles rapped for publishing data they shouldn't have.

Should have. And good on them. This is huge sums of public money and the lack of transparency is disgusting.

As exposed, this sort of data is vital to the legitimate spending of billions of Pounds. Had this data been public in the first place, there is no way HS2 could have gotten away with treating Liverpool as they did. Campaigners have been gaslit for years, when the raw data more than supports their position.

The data, from revenue to raw passenger numbers, is hidden under claims of "commercial sensitivity" that don't exist, while ministers get to make opaque decisions and everyone else is left in the dark.

I would wager that someone who views this forum is responsible for triggering a redacted version replacement, having seen the conversations involved.

I hope that many people now have this data, having been published openly.

 

[Bartsimho]

This is on pages 278 to 283 on the original report yes? I think that's it anyway

 

[jfollows]

Oops, the original document has been captured by the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830210307/https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/North, West and Central/West Coast South Strategic Advice 2023.pdf

Thank you, you saved me the pain of finding it in my browser cache.

 

[Bartsimho]

Looking at the data it appears that London-Northampton might justify extra/faster service with it being the best in the Milton Keynes to Birmingham stretch with a Slower Semi-Fast serving it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looking at the data it appears that London-Northampton might justify extra/faster service with it being the best in the Milton Keynes to Birmingham stretch with a Slower Semi-Fast serving it.

I could see sense in making the fast peak extra (Northampton-MKC-Euston) all day, but not much more than that to be honest. MKC has far more traffic.

 

[Bartsimho]

I could see sense in making the fast peak extra (Northampton-MKC-Euston) all day, but not much more than that to be honest. MKC has far more traffic.

I'd say a Euston-Watford Junction-MKC-Northampton service which then continues in the current Semi-Fast pattern to New Street as well due to no South facing bays at Northampton and the freight that would use the loop as well

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say a Euston-Watford Junction-MKC-Northampton service which then continues in the current Semi-Fast pattern to New Street as well due to no South facing bays at Northampton and the freight that would use the loop as well

I'd say no. There are already semifast and fast Euston-Brum services, and the consistent pattern is a big strength. Northampton effectively does have a south facing bay - P3.

 

[Bartsimho]

I'd say no. There are already semifast and fast Euston-Brum services, and the consistent pattern is a big strength. Northampton effectively does have a south facing bay - P3.

If it was in the peaks like you mentioned it could work as extra capacity from the same path unless you slot something in that path between Rugby and Birmingham

 

[BeijingDave]

I'd say no. There are already semifast and fast Euston-Brum services, and the consistent pattern is a big strength. Northampton effectively does have a south facing bay - P3.

What is the reason for two north facing bays but none south at Northampton?

 

[Birkonian]

Dont forget theres already a Crewe-Holyhead rail line with direct services from London operating that strip so anything for Chester and its environs, the Welsh coast and the southern half of the Wirral Peninsula arent going to be travelling via Liverpool. (I think Bebington is the point where its equidistant journey wise via Chester and Liverpool)

You are correct but Advance fares from Chester are usually more expensive than from Liverpool. I live close to Spital Station but rarely go via Chester. Not many direct services to/from Chester is another negative.

 

[Magdalia]

What is the reason for two north facing bays but none south at Northampton?

History.

Before electrification the north end bays were for Market Harborough and Rugby trains, with few of the latter running through from or to Euston. There were also bays at the south end for Peterborough and Bedford trains, but these did not have access to/from Bletchley, and they were redundant once those lines closed.

At electrification the north end bays were retained for loading and unloading of mail and parcels. For a long time they were very rarely used for passenger trains. That changed when Kings Heath EMU depot was built: since then there have been a few early morning departures and late evening arrivals using the north end bays, with EMUs coming off or going onto the depot.

 

[frodshamfella]

I tend to agree. These figures tell us only about gross point-to-point revenues. They tell us nothing about average revenue per passenger nor the balance of capacity to average loadings. They also don't reveal anything useful about passengers connecting from off-route locations: railway geography would suggest those numbers will be higher via Manchester than Liverpool and there will also be numbers via Preston, and to a lesser extent Wigan, but the figures don't help with actually knowing these. In terms of pre-HS2 service changes what do we expect in terms of releasing suppressed demand either directly or by offering alternatives to passengers using other routes currently? Ultimately the document, interesting as it is by being novel, is really a rather basic tool for initial high-level discussions rather than detailed planning.


It would also enable passengers from Southport to have a simpler interchange than either the "city centre shuffle" or the similar "Wigan walk".

Would the second Lime Street to London also call at Runcorn ? In the BR days there were peak services calling at Hartford, which could be useful .

 

[infobleep]

If east west rain went to MKC, I'd agree, since this would offer connections to a lot of places - it could act like the Reading of the GWML

Do they have the capacity to stop them all there though or is it like Clapham Junction whereby they can't stop enough of them because too many trains run. South West Mainline. I'm not suggesting run less trains.

 

[Bartsimho]

Do they have the capacity to stop them all there though or is it like Clapham Junction whereby they can't stop enough of them because too many trains run. South West Mainline. I'm not suggesting run less trains.

They can't stop all of them at MK at the moment but the report suggests 2 more tracks for East West Rail into Milton Keynes as a high priority due to the connections it offers

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Would the second Lime Street to London also call at Runcorn ? In the BR days there were peak services calling at Hartford, which could be useful .

Unless there are problems with pathing it's hard to imagine that the second Lime Street would miss out Runcorn. And I agree that a stop at Hartford might well be useful so long as there is reason to believe sufficient demand exists.