Idea for non-stop Scotland to London

[Ze Random One]

Added to the fact that the railway needs to get the luggage thing sorted out. Having your luggage checked through for a transfer aids the transfer process immensely. In addition, if you are dealing with vulnerable passengers, the lack of stop-off points, the presence of a large dedicated crew both on-board and in the terminal, and the single departures/arrivals funnels at most airports means that it is far easier to be confident an elderly relative can be dispatched and collected without wandering off.

The only thing that would really put paid to the short-haul flights would be to substantially increase Air Passenger Duty on corridors served by High Speed trains, and to ensure that HS2-Heathrow services had a dedicated fleet that could support the luggage requirements of long-haul passengers (possibly with a dedicated set of bag drops in the HS2-Heathrow station, or checked baggage through from select other stations).

 

[Starmill]

we are all entitled to our opinions

I do not believe HS2 will have any effect whatsoever on the Scotland-London air market----even if it does actually get to Scotland which I doubt it ever will

On the contrary, UNLESS it gets to Scotland, the true benefits of building the southern length will never be realised.

 

[Taunton]

In recent years, I personally question whether it's actually much quicker to fly Edinburgh to London, vs IC125. If you're looking at city centre to city centre time, there's really not much in it, if King's Cross is a convenient location for you..

I know it suits rail to pretend that everyone wants to travel from city centre to city centre, but that's just not true any more. A large number of business offices have pulled out of city centre locations, from London especially they have spread all down the M3/M4 corridor, precisely because of a location convenient to Heathrow. Likewise business travellers doing such trips tend to set off from their homes, generally in the outer suburbs or Home Counties, and find that getting to Kings Cross takes far longer than driving to Heathrow.
The real fact is that rail and air have ended up serving different markets.

 

[Murph]

I know it suits rail to pretend that everyone wants to travel from city centre to city centre, but that's just not true any more. A large number of business offices have pulled out of city centre locations, from London especially they have spread all down the M3/M4 corridor, precisely because of a location convenient to Heathrow. Likewise business travellers doing such trips tend to set off from their homes, generally in the outer suburbs or Home Counties, and find that getting to Kings Cross takes far longer than driving to Heathrow.
The real fact is that rail and air have ended up serving different markets.

Yup, that's all quite fair comment. The plane wins if LHR is easier to get to/from than King's Cross or Euston, including factoring in the time for security, mandatory extra waiting around due to minimum checkin, baggage claim, and this week's silly arbitrary rules about bag sizes, weight, or contents.

I used to love taking the EDI-LHR shuttle on a cheap BA/BD ticket, more or less on a whim, then Piccadilly line into London for a long weekend (or later the Hex). I could more or less do that journey blindfolded. It used to be so pleasant and easy. The hassle factor growing by an order of magnitude put me off it almost completely, to the point where I don't even care if the train is slower unless the timing just becomes impossible. For me, Waverley is easy to get to, King's Cross is either closer or as close as LHR to where I want to be in real terms.

 

[pne]

ensure that HS2-Heathrow services had a dedicated fleet that could support the luggage requirements of long-haul passengers (possibly with a dedicated set of bag drops in the HS2-Heathrow station, or checked baggage through from select other stations).

Switzerland does this: if you travel on a participating airline, you can check your luggage through to many railway stations, and conversely check your luggage in at a railway station for a later flight.

 

[adrock1976]

Don't forget trains have to stop somewhere mid journey for a crew change so non stop is not possible in the real scheme of things.

Not necessarily, as the test run of the Class 390 Pendolino from Glasgow Central to London Euston was completed in 3 hours and 55 minutes in 2006, with the Advanced Passenger Train completing the same southbound run in 4 hours and 14 minutes in 1981. The northbound run of the APT was done in 3 hours and 52 minutes in 1984.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5369808.stm

Cheers

Adam

 

[Greenback]

There have been some very interesting opinions and points raised in this thread. My own view aligns with those who point out that the Scotland to London air market is not largely made up of people who are going to the city centre at either end.

Apart from those who are connecting to and from other flights, and those who are working or living near one of the airports, there must be a certain amount of traffic that can't realistically be catered for by rail at all, as well as those travelling to and from the south east who don't want to include crossing London in their journey.

It's a complicated issue, and while I'd like to reduce the amount of air travel for environmental reasons, I think that running non stop would have a negligible effect. There's more to it than just speed, and shaving a few minutes off would have a negative impact on connectivity and intermediate flows as well.

 

[marks87]

HS2 is the real game changer with regards to this idea and could kill off the internal London - Scotland air market.

No it won't.

 

[Murph]

It's a complicated issue, and while I'd like to reduce the amount of air travel for environmental reasons, I think that running non stop would have a negligible effect. There's more to it than just speed, and shaving a few minutes off would have a negative impact on connectivity and intermediate flows as well.

Yeah, I'd like to see a handful of 4h00 limited stop expresses spread through the day, but don't think that we need non-stop unless that can somehow get it down to close to 3h00 (can't see that happening with 125mph max). Shaving 4h00 down to, for example, 3h45 wouldn't really be enough of an advantage to justify no intermediate stops. Edinburgh-Newcastle-York-London, or similar, is a fairly good pattern for limited stop. Add in maybe 1 or 2 other quick stops at major stations if the timing can be reliably kept down to 4h00 (I think 4h is one of those magic psychological barriers between fast and not quite so fast).

 

[Paule23]

I would love to use the train more when I need to travel to London from Glasgow, but when booking in advance rail cannot compete on price. On my last journey I booked 10 days in advance and paid £39 return for my airfare. Even adding on the taxi and rail costs at either end the total cost was under £100 return, the cheapest rail fare (at the same times, to get to Canary Wharf for 1000 and leave after 1700) was over £140, plus another £30 for travel at either end. The £70 difference is significant in the budget constrained times.

 

[gordonthemoron]

On the contrary, UNLESS it gets to Scotland, the true benefits of building the southern length will never be realised.

on the contrary, the true benefit from HS2 is for Milton Keynes commuters

 

[jopsuk]

for Edinburgh-Newcastle in particular is there much that could reasonably be done to bring the time down from an hour and a half?

 

[cjt0131]

On the contrary, UNLESS it gets to Scotland, the true benefits of building the southern length will never be realised.

I beg to differ

in fact id go as far as to say utter nonsense

 

[Senex]

on the contrary, the true benefit from HS2 is for Milton Keynes commuters

On the basis that the capacity freed up on the southern end of the WCML means that they can have more, and more comfortable, commuter trains?

 

[notadriver]

I think rail travel is less appealing once journey times exceed 3 hours. People used to fly to Manchester from London. I know the london to Paris routes are still popular but hasnt Eurostar destroyed the competition ?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

for Edinburgh-Newcastle in particular is there much that could reasonably be done to bring the time down from an hour and a half?

I often wonder if some of the low linespeeds through the Eye Valley and Pease Burn Valley (with the summit nr Grantshouse between them) could be increased. But even with the infrastructure as it is at present, the Flying Scotsman often achieves the run in 1hr 20mins, when there's only the one Berwick stopper 10mins ahead of it.

 

[Greenback]

I would love to use the train more when I need to travel to London from Glasgow, but when booking in advance rail cannot compete on price. On my last journey I booked 10 days in advance and paid £39 return for my airfare. Even adding on the taxi and rail costs at either end the total cost was under £100 return, the cheapest rail fare (at the same times, to get to Canary Wharf for 1000 and leave after 1700) was over £140, plus another £30 for travel at either end. The £70 difference is significant in the budget constrained times.

That's a good illustration of the sort of decisions people make and the groudns they make them on. In your case, you had to be at a particular location (not in the traditional areas served by London's railway termini) at a particular time, which heavily influenced your choice of transport.

Price also made a big difference, and even if this was not the case for you or will not be the case for others, the factors of location and time may override any cost concerns.

The fact is that rail alone cannot serve every flow and every market. It's a mistake to think that it can, and to believe that it should!

I think rail travel is less appealing once journey times exceed 3 hours. People used to fly to Manchester from London. I know the london to Paris routes are still popular but hasnt Eurostar destroyed the competition ?

That's true. although I think the time limit is probably more flexible. As above it will depend on the nature of the journey and the alternatives that are available, but it's a reasonable enough time to quote for discussion purposes.

 

[martinsh]

Surely non stop runs will become impossible soon, due to the need to stop at Berwick / Carlisle for border checks !!

 

[Chrism20]

Yeah, I'd like to see a handful of 4h00 limited stop expresses spread through the day, but don't think that we need non-stop unless that can somehow get it down to close to 3h00 (can't see that happening with 125mph max). Shaving 4h00 down to, for example, 3h45 wouldn't really be enough of an advantage to justify no intermediate stops. Edinburgh-Newcastle-York-London, or similar, is a fairly good pattern for limited stop. Add in maybe 1 or 2 other quick stops at major stations if the timing can be reliably kept down to 4h00 (I think 4h is one of those magic psychological barriers between fast and not quite so fast).

Yes, as someone who does Edinburgh to London at least two to three times a month the limited stop services are appealing.

The morning one at the moment is Newcastle only, I'd probably stop it at York as well to be honest but it's Newcastle only to get it to the magic four hours.

I'd probably go for an Edinburgh - Newcastle - York - London at 6am, 8am, 3pm and 5pm southbound. Northbound I normally only use a set couple of trains so couldn't really comment on those ones.

One thing that always surprises me and I know there is a lot of railway history etc there is the number of services that stop at Darlington but again missing it out would only save three or four minutes so you are as well stopping.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, as someone who does Edinburgh to London at least two to three times a month the limited stop services are appealing.

The morning one at the moment is Newcastle only, I'd probably stop it at York as well to be honest but it's Newcastle only to get it to the magic four hours.

The incoming franchisee intends to have quite a few more Newcastle only services, (4 or 5 each way IIRC?) so presumably they must have done the sums and found it's worth it...

Update: 6 services each way stopping at Newcastle only, mentioned by Roger Ford in Jan Modern Railways.

 

[Chrism20]

The incoming franchisee intends to have quite a few more Newcastle only services, (4 or 5 each way IIRC?) so presumably they must have done the sums and found it's worth it...

The morning one is definitely worth it although there is plenty of space onboard for a pick up at another station although this would take it over the magic 4hrs.

If they slot them in every two or three hours they will be well used anything. Say 6am, 9am, noon, 3pm and 6pm southbound.

I'm sure they have done their sums though, it would be good their planned timetable.

 

[najaB]

for Edinburgh-Newcastle in particular is there much that could reasonably be done to bring the time down from an hour and a half?

The 50mph PSR through Morpeth is an easy starting point - avoiding line?

 

[Taunton]

I think rail travel is less appealing once journey times exceed 3 hours. People used to fly to Manchester from London. I know the london to Paris routes are still popular but hasnt Eurostar destroyed the competition ?

People still fly from London to Manchester, it's actually the busiest route from Manchester Airport. Apart from those changing planes at Heathrow, if you live in Bracknell or Guildford, or are coming down visiting business offices in Brentford or Epsom, rail just doesn't handle it.

Eurostar to Paris is an interesting one because when it started they got a LOT of business from people living in the areas I just mentioned, who used to walk across the concourse at Waterloo, and the plane service from Heathrow was very much reduced. When it transferred to St Pancras it cut this useful direct connection from the very quadrant of London suburbia which generated more of their trips than any other, and the air service from Heathrow got a sudden increase in passengers and services again. Shows how easy it is to lose a market.

The manager of the Marks & Spencer on Waterloo concourse told me they used to do a big trade on Sunday evenings with returning weekenders from Paris walking between trains, which was all lost when the St Pancras move took place.

 

[Clip]

The 50mph PSR through Morpeth is an easy starting point - avoiding line?

You would be looking at at least 10 - 15 miles of line Id say given its location in the town.

Saying that the railway gold of Welwyn viaduct getting a new one on there could shave time off but the cost would be a lot

 

[gordonthemoron]

don't trains which don't stop at Darlo use the avoiding line? If so, how come there is only a cost of 4 minutes for stopping there?

 

[Camden]

People still fly from London to Manchester, it's actually the busiest route from Manchester Airport. Apart from those changing planes at Heathrow, if you live in Bracknell or Guildford, or are coming down visiting business offices in Brentford or Epsom, rail just doesn't handle it.

Eurostar to Paris is an interesting one because when it started they got a LOT of business from people living in the areas I just mentioned, who used to walk across the concourse at Waterloo, and the plane service from Heathrow was very much reduced. When it transferred to St Pancras it cut this useful direct connection from the very quadrant of London suburbia which generated more of their trips than any other, and the air service from Heathrow got a sudden increase in passengers and services again. Shows how easy it is to lose a market.

The manager of the Marks & Spencer on Waterloo concourse told me they used to do a big trade on Sunday evenings with returning weekenders from Paris walking between trains, which was all lost when the St Pancras move took place.

I never understood the logic of moving from Waterloo. The trains go south, so why put them into a station in the north of the city facing north. Not to mention all the work that then required at St Pancras.

 

[Greenback]

People still fly from London to Manchester, it's actually the busiest route from Manchester Airport. Apart from those changing planes at Heathrow, if you live in Bracknell or Guildford, or are coming down visiting business offices in Brentford or Epsom, rail just doesn't handle it.

Exactly. I dare say the same is true for towns near other airports as well.

Eurostar to Paris is an interesting one because when it started they got a LOT of business from people living in the areas I just mentioned, who used to walk across the concourse at Waterloo, and the plane service from Heathrow was very much reduced. When it transferred to St Pancras it cut this useful direct connection from the very quadrant of London suburbia which generated more of their trips than any other, and the air service from Heathrow got a sudden increase in passengers and services again. Shows how easy it is to lose a market.

I've heard this being said, and I'd be interested to know how much of an effect the move to St Pancras actually had. A lot of what I've read seems to be based on second hand knowledge and could well be an exaggeration.

The manager of the Marks & Spencer on Waterloo concourse told me they used to do a big trade on Sunday evenings with returning weekenders from Paris walking between trains, which was all lost when the St Pancras move took place.

That's what I mean! Traffic may have been lost to Waterloo, and even lost to rail completely, but it may well have been replaced by other traffic from North London, St Albans, Peterborough, Cambridge etc.

It all just goes to underline the fact that rail can't win on every flow.

 

[edwin_m]

I never understood the logic of moving from Waterloo. The trains go south, so why put them into a station in the north of the city facing north. Not to mention all the work that then required at St Pancras.

It gives decent access to Eurostar from a much larger slice of the country north of London for which Heathrow isn't particularly easy to get to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The manager of the Marks & Spencer on Waterloo concourse told me they used to do a big trade on Sunday evenings with returning weekenders from Paris walking between trains, which was all lost when the St Pancras move took place.

Not necessarily lost. They presumably all now use one of the two M&S at St Pancras!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd probably stop it at York as well to be honest but it's Newcastle only to get it to the magic four hours.

Not stopping at York may actually make the timetabling easier, as it would provide an opportunity to overtake a slower train during its station stop.

 

[jopsuk]

I never understood the logic of moving from Waterloo. The trains go south, so why put them into a station in the north of the city facing north. Not to mention all the work that then required at St Pancras.

Because it was desirable to have a high-speed link into the terminal (rather than using existing congested suburban lines with low linespeeds and restricted loading gauge) and it was genuinely easier to do that into St Pancras (which at the time was a backwater)

 

[Murph]

Because it was desirable to have a high-speed link into the terminal (rather than using existing congested suburban lines with low linespeeds and restricted loading gauge) and it was genuinely easier to do that into St Pancras (which at the time was a backwater)

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the integration with both ECML and WCML (via direct adjacency of the termini) must has been seen as a positive, especially after the original plan for Eurostar services to continue northwards was abandoned.