My idea for London Northwestern Railway's new Blackpool North to London Euston services

[James Kevill]

London Northwestern Railway operated by West Midlands Trains could take over Grand Central Railway's new services between London Euston to Blackpool North since Grand Central has abandoned the services permanently due to Coronavirus. And LNR will use the rolling stocks are Class 350 Desiros and 730 Aventras on the London Euston to Blackpool North services and they have 110mph speed.

These are the services I just made for LNR:

London Euston to Blackpool North
Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Polesworth (limited service), Tamworth, Lichfield Trent Valley, Rugley Trent Valley, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde.

London Euston to Blackpool North via Birmingham New Street
Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Canley (London-bound only), Tile Hill, Berkswell (London-bound only), Hampton-in-Arden (London-bound only), Birmingham International, Marston Green (London-bound only), Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge (Blackpool-bound only), Coseley (London-bound only), Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge (limited service), Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde.

London Euston to Blackpool North via Birmingham New Street
Watford Junction (London-bound only), Hemel Hempstead (London-bound only), Berkhamsted (London-bound only), Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Central, Wolverton, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Canley (Blackpool-bound only), Tile Hill, Berkswell (Blackpool-bound only), Hampton-in-Arden (Blackpool-bound only), Birmingham International, Marston Green, Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge (London-bound only), Coseley (Blackpool-bound only), Wolverhampton, Penkridge, Stafford, Crewe, Hartford, Acton Bridge (limited), Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Kirkham & Wesham and Poulton-le-Fylde.

 

[SargeNpton]

So, due to the time those journeys will take with all those stops, all the Fylde passengers will change at Preston to use Avanti for the London-Preston long-haul just as they do now.

Polesworth? I assume you've just put that in to keep us all amused.

 

[James Kevill]

So, due to the time those journeys will take with all those stops, all the Fylde passengers will change at Preston to use Avanti for the London-Preston long-haul just as they do now.

Polesworth? I assume you've just put that in to keep us all amused.

Well yes but however, they are the alternative stops meaning it doesn't have to stop at all stations and they just passing through some stations that they don't call at for the express services.

 

[cle]

Extending the TV fastest service may well be worthwhile. There isn't a solid hourly between Blackpool and Crewe, and from the smaller stops like Hartford and Winslow up to Preston.

Budget conscious folks may well stay on for the full ride - some do with Liverpool and Crewe, if you have an hour or so to spare, or don't like changing. I.e. the old.

 

[The Planner]

How can they take over the service unless they completely replicate the paths GC had? your suggestion is a timetable re-write of the paths.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Definitely, I suspect, market for the "Trent Valley Fast" (now it doesn't go via Stone) to go to Preston at least, I would hope. That said, this would have been so much better if they had used a better rolling stock and cut out the Rugeley stop (there is, I believe, a Class 350 service planned in future to Manchester from London via local stops, so Rugeley would be fine with that), and therefore you could definitely see a use for some IEP-type stuff in future.

Whilst Avanti are planning all sorts, as travel starts to slim down I have no doubt IEP stock on the East Coast will be less required (at least 5 car all-electric ones), so it would be good to see some redeployed onto the West Coast to run an hourly service from Euston, stopping only at MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, Crewe and then Winsford, Hartford, Warrington, Wigan, possibly even Leyland (quite good passenger numbers and cachment), Preston, Kirkham, Poulton and Blackpool North.

That then effectively forces the Manchester Cl. 350 8 car to be, you would hope (as if MKC needs much better connectivity already), Euston, Watford, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley, Stone (if you can reinstate the platforms on the Hixon line), Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Cheadle, Stockport and Man Picc.

 

[tetudo boy]

Quite a long service, but could happen if path problems on the WCML weren't a thing.

 

[JonathanH]

Whilst Avanti are planning all sorts, as travel starts to slim down I have no doubt IEP stock on the East Coast will be less required (at least 5 car all-electric ones), so it would be good to see some redeployed onto the West Coast to run an hourly service from Euston, stopping only at MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Stafford, Crewe and then Winsford, Hartford, Warrington, Wigan, possibly even Leyland (quite good passenger numbers and cachment), Preston, Kirkham, Poulton and Blackpool North.

Doesn't that overlook the fact that when LNER have spare IEP stock, Avanti or LNR will also have spare stock so there would be no need for redeployment of the IEPs?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Doesn't that overlook the fact that when LNER have spare IEP stock, Avanti or LNR will also have spare stock so there would be no need for redeployment of the IEPs?

Well, they may well have spare stock but the Pendolino units will be knocking on when 2a opens.

 

[Ianno87]

I could see a commercial case for LNW taking an hourly service on to Preston.

Blackpool would trigger an extra hourly circuit so would probably be a poorer business case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I could see a commercial case for LNW taking an hourly service on to Preston.

Blackpool would trigger an extra hourly circuit so would probably be a poorer business case.

I suspect they might well be more interested in Manchester, if it was possible, being the UK's largest intercity market and there being plenty of budget coach users and students driving old bangers for the picking. TBH I reckon they could easily fill 8.350 hourly from Manchester, possibly even to the point they'd need to go to 12-car for the passengers from intermediate stations at busy times of day.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I could see a commercial case for LNW taking an hourly service on to Preston.

Blackpool would trigger an extra hourly circuit so would probably be a poorer business case.

But realistically it makes good sense. What are the passenger loadings like on Liverpool - Blackpool? Could they truncate to Preston accordingly?

I suspect they might well be more interested in Manchester, if it was possible, being the UK's largest intercity market and there being plenty of budget coach users and students driving old bangers for the picking. TBH I reckon they could easily fill 8.350 hourly from Manchester, possibly even to the point they'd need to go to 12-car for the passengers from intermediate stations at busy times of day.

It's already in the documentation for post-HS2 services on the legacy WCML. At the start, it will go to Victoria via Warrington; post-Phase 2a it will go to Piccadilly via Macclesfield.

 

[DB]

The one exception might be WMT by extending the Crewe service, as someone has created a thread in Speculative Ideas about should anyone wish to speculate further on the idea. But that wouldn't involve buying the business unit, it'd be run as part of the existing TOC.

Indeed - and if the Grand Central paths lapse, as they presumably will, WMT will be able to put in an application if they want to (and if the DfT lets them!)

 

[185]

So, due to the time those journeys will take with all those stops, all the Fylde passengers will change at Preston to use Avanti for the London-Preston long-haul just as they do now.

Polesworth? I assume you've just put that in to keep us all amused.

Vast majority of those using LNR at present for end to end journeys are on company-specific, 50% (or more) cheaper tickets.

On the Trent valley - fastest all stops time is 2 hours 4 mins, compared with 1 hour 37.

For those travelling to Blackpool for holiday, for 95% of them, the cost difference will certainly offset 30 minutes extra and fill trains north of Crewe.

I've also considered the Birmingham-Stoke-Crewe could be extended to Manchester Airport, given it arrives into Crewe (from the south) on the right hand side- ie few conflicting moves.

 

[Starmill]

Commercially, and until March, extension of the Trent Valley LNR services to Manchester would blow any alternative completely out of the water from a revenue point of view. But a) there's no path and b) they almost certainly couldn't satisfy the demand that would appear in an hourly 8 car anyway.

 

[Silverlinky]

Preston has been talked about before, and certainly Manchester Airport was a serious ambition a year or two ago.

Can't help thinking though there there is no business case for extending anything or putting in new services to anywhere at the moment. The same COVID issues that meant it was unviable for GC would make it unviable for WMT surely?

Also not sure whether anything can be done easily when the TOC is under an Emergency Measures Agreement (and presumably an imminent Emergency Remedial Measures Agreement)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't help thinking though there there is no business case for extending anything or putting in new services to anywhere at the moment. The same COVID issues that meant it was unviable for GC would make it unviable for WMT surely?

Not really. GC needed an entire support function for it, several trainsets etc, WMT would I reckon just need a couple of extra units (which they can probably eke out of existing diagrams) and crews.

It might still be (probably is) unviable, but the cost is much lower because they're already running the Euston to Crewe bit.

 

[Silverlinky]

Not really. GC needed an entire support function for it, several trainsets etc, WMT would I reckon just need a couple of extra units (which they can probably eke out of existing diagrams) and crews.

It might still be (probably is) unviable, but the cost is much lower because they're already running the Euston to Crewe bit.

And that's the thing...there will be a cost, and any "additional spending" is basically not allowed at the moment. Traincrew training will be an obstacle too in the current climate.

It maybe something that gathers more traction (!) in a couple of years, post-Covid and when the new 730's are in service.

IIRC WMT bid for the paths that GC eventually won.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe I should rephrase - if it's viable for anyone to do it, it's viable for WMT to do it because it's a simple extension of an existing service. If it isn't viable for WMT to do it, it isn't viable at all (which may well be the case).

 

[The Planner]

Commercially, and until March, extension of the Trent Valley LNR services to Manchester would blow any alternative completely out of the water from a revenue point of view. But a) there's no path and b) they almost certainly couldn't satisfy the demand that would appear in an hourly 8 car anyway.

Northern stopper is in the way northbound and you would be following an Avanti southbound more than likely from Picc.

 

[London Trains]

Northern stopper is in the way northbound and you would be following an Avanti southbound more than likely from Picc.

Use the service to replace the Stoke to Macclesfield part of the Northern stopper (it will be faster and have faster acceleration so will arrive at Macclesfield earlier and run in a new path onwards, with stops at Cheadle Hulme and Stockport) and run the Northern service right behind from Macclesfield (since the LNWR will be a few min ahead and have less stops it will be running in it's own path).

I'm not sure how to make it work southbound.

 

[Starmill]

Use the service to replace the Stoke to Macclesfield part of the Northern stopper (it will be faster and have faster acceleration so will arrive at Macclesfield earlier and run in a new path onwards, with stops at Cheadle Hulme and Stockport) and run the Northern service right behind from Macclesfield (since the LNWR will be a few min ahead and have less stops it will be running in it's own path).

I'm not sure how to make it work southbound.

How would that serve Crewe?

 

[The Planner]

How would that serve Crewe?

It wouldn't, clearly they have misunderstood!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Commercially, and until March, extension of the Trent Valley LNR services to Manchester would blow any alternative completely out of the water from a revenue point of view. But a) there's no path and b) they almost certainly couldn't satisfy the demand that would appear in an hourly 8 car anyway.

How would that fare against the "not primarily abstractive" test?

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Use the service to replace the Stoke to Macclesfield part of the Northern stopper (it will be faster and have faster acceleration so will arrive at Macclesfield earlier and run in a new path onwards, with stops at Cheadle Hulme and Stockport) and run the Northern service right behind from Macclesfield (since the LNWR will be a few min ahead and have less stops it will be running in it's own path).

I'm not sure how to make it work southbound.

That won't work as it would remove any direct Macclesfield & Congleton - Kidsgrove services based on the stopping pattern proposed here:

That then effectively forces the Manchester Cl. 350 8 car to be, you would hope (as if MKC needs much better connectivity already), Euston, Watford, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley, Stone (if you can reinstate the platforms on the Hixon line), Stoke, Congleton, Macclesfield, Cheadle, Stockport and Man Picc.

The below isn't quite right.
The post-HS2 document specifies TWO services.
Trent Valley stopper as now goes to Victoria until 2b when it goes via WILMSLOW to Piccadilly.

Then an additional service for: Euston, Watford, MKC, Stoke, Macclesfield, Poynton, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, Manchester Picc.
This second one SHOULD have a Congleton stop too, no idea why it's omitted given higher passenger figures than both Poynton and Bramhall.

It's already in the documentation for post-HS2 services on the legacy WCML. At the start, it will go to Victoria via Warrington; post-Phase 2a it will go to Piccadilly via Macclesfield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MK is only going to grow - there is no point any LNR service missing it out.

 

[Ianno87]

How would that fare against the "not primarily abstractive" test?

LNR I'd imaging could provide some decent evidence from their London-Liverpool flow about the level of demand that is genuinely created by the service and not just abstracted from Avanti.

Plus Euston-Crewe has a pretty established demand base as it is, particularly for intermediate flows; extending it to Manchester probably doesn't add *that* much revenue in percentage terms (but possibly moreso in absolute terms)

 

[London Trains]

That won't work as it would remove any direct Macclesfield & Congleton - Kidsgrove services based on the stopping pattern proposed here:

I never read that post - I would have the service call at both Kidsgrove and Congleton.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It's already in the documentation for post-HS2 services on the legacy WCML. At the start, it will go to Victoria via Warrington; post-Phase 2a it will go to Piccadilly via Macclesfield.

Will there be anything to Birmingham via Wilmslow?

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Will there be anything to Birmingham via Wilmslow?

see my post above #25