Did Inter City stop at St Albans in the timetable

[ChiefPlanner]

GTR set the Any Permittted fare from SAC to London so would not be permitted to introduce a cheaper GTR only fare.
EMT could introduce EMT only fares but this would only increase crowding on the services you'd want people not to use.

At Peterborough it works because LNER sets the Any Permitted therefore GTR can introduce cheaper fares on their slower services.
Milton Keynes is a bit of an exception for day tickets (although not for season tickets) because Virgin historically priced the tickets (allowing Silverlink (as ws) to set up cheaper 'Silverlink only' fares). Silverlink then took over pricing for the Any Permitted fares allowing Virgin to introduce Virgin Only fares but Silverlink were allowed to keep their operator specific fares as a one-off.

Following huge 1996 timetable battles , where neither North London Railways or West Coast Trains would declare their plans for stopping patterns to the very last moment , due to the ORCATS revenue swings.

 

[edwin_m]

Compared to all the other reasons why it's a bad idea for EMT to stop at St Albans then changing the fare system (for example so EMT priced St Albans to London and Thameslink were allowed to undercut them) would be a comparatively minor obstacle.

 

[Hadders]

Compared to all the other reasons why it's a bad idea for EMT to stop at St Albans then changing the fare system (for example so EMT priced St Albans to London and Thameslink were allowed to undercut them) would be a comparatively minor obstacle.

Perhaps, but it’s not simple.

If you allowed a GTR only fare that was cheaper than the unchanged Any Permitted fare there would be an overall loss of revenue. Who would make up the shortfall?

On the other hand you coukd rename the current Any Permitted as GTR only and introduce a higher Any Permitted fare. I don’t think passengers would be happy with this.

 

[Skymonster]

I well remember being on Peak-hauled services from Nottingham to St Pancras calling at St Albans back in the day. But that doesn't make it a good solution now. The reality is that customers on Thameslink have recently got a vastly improved service thanks to the new timetable and upgraded stock, and the expense of EMT customers who have gained longer journey times. There is simply no justification for further inconveniecing EMT customers with an extra stop that would both lengthen journey times and increase overcrowding at the London end of the services.

Look at it another way - how about we start campaigning for long distance GWR services (800s, HSTs) into/from Paddington to call at West Drayton? Do you think that would go down well with travellers from Bristol and the likes? No, it wouldn't. Things have changed since Nottingham and Derby services calle at St Albans, and stopping EMT at SAC today is just a daft idea.

 

[Bald Rick]

I well remember being on Peak-hauled services from Nottingham to St Pancras calling at St Albans back in the day. But that doesn't make it a good solution now. The reality is that customers on Thameslink have recently got a vastly improved service thanks to the new timetable and upgraded stock, and the expense of EMT customers who have gained longer journey times. There is simply no justification for further inconveniecing EMT customers with an extra stop that would both lengthen journey times and increase overcrowding at the London end of the services.

Look at it another way - how about we start campaigning for long distance GWR services (800s, HSTs) into/from Paddington to call at West Drayton? Do you think that would go down well with travellers from Bristol and the likes? No, it wouldn't. Things have changed since Nottingham and Derby services calle at St Albans, and stopping EMT at SAC today is just a daft idea.

I agree it’s a silly idea, but suggesting West Drayton is a poor example. Slough would have been better, being a similar distance... and of course some longer distance GW trains do call there.

 

[edwin_m]

On the other hand you coukd rename the current Any Permitted as GTR only and introduce a higher Any Permitted fare. I don’t think passengers would be happy with this.

I don't see that this would be objectionable as long as the GTR service wasn't reduced. Passengers would still be paying the same for the same service, and any that wanted to use a marginally quicker but considerably more comfortable new alternative would pay extra.

 

[Hadders]

What about the anomalies that would be introduced at adjacent stations?

 

[edwin_m]

What about the anomalies that would be introduced at adjacent stations?

It might involve creating GTR-only and any permitted fares from other stations such as Harpenden, so that people couldn't cheat the system by changing or at St Albans or by buying a Harpenden ticket and entering/exiting at St Albans.

 

[Hadders]

So more complification then...

 

[edwin_m]

Rather a bit of complification than having the train packed between London and St Albans and nearly empty the rest of the way to/from Corby. If it stopped there anyway, which it probably won't.

It's pretty much what they do today at Luton Airport Parkway.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The answer is NO - there is precisely no justification for such stops. It might pick up a penny number of passengers, but each stop adds 3-4 minutes to the journey - which for passengers to Nottingham or Leicester mounts up each time a stop is added. .... .

Well, I could equally shout I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS TRIED IT, HAVE THEY, SO HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? - but it wouldn't make it any more or less true, would it?
Each stop - for two up trains and two down trains per day - would add approx 14 mins in total spread across four trains a day. If you omitted a Luton or LAP stop in those particular trains, it wouldn't change their overall timings one whit, would it? (This is not to say such changes are practical on a railway so tightly timed as the MML at that point - or on the ECML for Huntingdon - it's just for the scenario.)
I accept that under the present ways things are run, it's most unlikely to happen (I also accept that omitting Luton or LAP for St Albans would probably mean lower overall revenues.)

And I don't know how such trains could be marketed to inform the public of their existence. But simply to shout NO - I don't accept that.

 

[AM9]

Well, I could equally shout I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS TRIED IT, HAVE THEY, SO HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? - but it wouldn't make it any more or less true, would it?
Each stop - for two up trains and two down trains per day - would add approx 14 mins in total spread across four trains a day. If you omitted a Luton or LAP stop in those particular trains, it wouldn't change their overall timings one whit, would it? (This is not to say such changes are practical on a railway so tightly timed as the MML at that point - or on the ECML for Huntingdon - it's just for the scenario.)
I accept that under the present ways things are run, it's most unlikely to happen (I also accept that omitting Luton or LAP for St Albans would probably mean lower overall revenues.)

And I don't know how such trains could be marketed to inform the public of their existence. But simply to shout NO - I don't accept that.

This thread started as a discussion about trains that used to stop at SAC. Now it seems to have turned into a battle to suppress any talk in case it worsens a few poster's 'personal' train services. By all means take up those sort of arguments with a TOC, but it is quite bizarre in a discussion forum.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So more complification then...

For something that is never actually going to happen....

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This thread started as a discussion about trains that used to stop at SAC. Now it seems to have turned into a battle to suppress any talk in case it worsens a few poster's 'personal' train services. By all means take up those sort of arguments with a TOC, but it is quite bizarre in a discussion forum.

Nothing more to say really - suggest disabling comments ?

(unless someone comes up with an invigorating "my idea for a 158 service from St Pancras to Carlisle via St Albans and Settle" .......)

 

[edwin_m]

(unless someone comes up with an invigorating "my idea for a 158 service from St Pancras to Carlisle via St Albans and Settle" .......)

Nah, gotta be a 442...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Nah, gotta be a 442...

Obviously worked by a Derby based class 46 ....

 

[RailWonderer]

I think it's worth future Corby EMUs to call at St Albans on weekends and off peak weekdays. A bit like how Weymouth trains from Waterloo call at Woking, Basingstoke and Clapham Jct but skip all three at rush hour.

 

[43074]

I think it's worth future Corby EMUs to call at St Albans on weekends and off peak weekdays. A bit like how Weymouth trains from Waterloo call at Woking, Basingstoke and Clapham Jct but skip all three at rush hour.

Why though? St Albans already has 4 per hour non stop to St Pancras, the only stop before Luton Airport & Luton is Harpenden so what would it actually achieve?

 

[A0]

Why though? St Albans already has 4 per hour non stop to St Pancras, the only stop before Luton Airport & Luton is Harpenden so what would it actually achieve?

Well said that man!

 

[RailWonderer]

Why though? St Albans already has 4 per hour non stop to St Pancras, the only stop before Luton Airport & Luton is Harpenden so what would it actually achieve?

Woking has way more than 4 fasts per hour ok it is slightly busier and Slough has 6tph (4 locals + 2 fasts) Slough receives 2 million passengers a year less than St Albans

 

[RailWonderer]

It's about frequency as much as speed, at least the occasional fast would make sense, everyone seems to complain St Albans is too crowded.

 

[43074]

Woking has way more than 4 fasts per hour ok it is slightly busier and Slough has 6tph (4 locals + 2 fasts) Slough receives 2 million passengers a year less than St Albans

Don't really see how comparing St Albans to other places helps here - Woking does well out of where it is on the SWR network - you have the lines from Guildford & Basingstoke converging and it is a convenient interchange from Mainline to Suburban services via Surbiton, St Albans gets a significantly better service than Slough - 4tph non-stop, 4tph all stations and 2tph semi-fast.

Luton or Luton Airport effectively provide the interchange between EMT and TL services aside from being a much larger town than St Albans in its own right.

It's about frequency as much as speed, at least the occasional fast would make sense, everyone seems to complain St Albans is too crowded.

A 15 minute interval fast service throughout the day - and as many as 8tph non-stop during the peaks - is perfectly adequate.

 

[CMS]

Deleted

 

[43074]

I would agree with this. Given the new peak Thameslink Express calling pattern being SAC, LUT, BDM and these paths likely to become the Corbys, this seems appropriate to me, although as you say perhaps peaks will be strictly limited stop.

The Corby paths will be additionals, and I would expect the Thameslink Expresses to revert back to calling at Harpenden etc anyway. The original (i.e. pre phasing) May 18 draft timetables had trains running in the Thameslink Express paths calling at Bedford, Leagrave, Luton, Harpenden and St Albans, so I would expect once Corby services start calling at Bedford and Luton in the peaks they will revert to that pattern.

2 stop at West Hampstead and all 4 of them have made 7 prior stops meaning the chances of getting a seat aren't good at all, particularly after Luton Airport. In comparison to other Home Counties commuter hubs, looking at season ticket prices and off-peak fares too, although SAC has a decent service level, it could still do better.

I think you would have more complaints than praise for removing West Hampstead Thameslink, it's a very useful and well used interchange for the Jubilee Line and North London Line services. As for chances of getting a seat once you've factored in stations from Kettering to Bedford inclusive and one of the Lutons the chances of getting a seat on the Corby are probably just as slim.

For SAC customers, there may be 10tph in the proposed timetable but 4tph overtake 6tph of them, meaning that SAC <> LDN traffic (which is substantial) will always go on these, an extra 1/2tph would help. Also, if the Corbys are an additional path to today's current EMTs and running at 100/110 as opposed to 125mph then it would not be 'too damaging' to make an additional stop there, so they can fit in pathing wise. Longer-distance EMTs cold then focus on LTN in a set-down, pick-up arrangement like WFJ/SVG perhaps?

The point is there is plenty of choice though - plus the Rainham services (semi-fasts) aren't actually overtaken. In terms of pathing expect the paths to be the same as the current EMT Corby service uses so stopping at St Albans would either interfere with the path of a fast EMT behind them, or a Thameslink following on the fast lines from Harpenden Jn (meaning you'd end up with 2 trains within about 4 mins anyway).

I also think an SAC stop is a good interchange given that all Sutton loop services now terminate there off-peak meaning that north London > East Midlands journeys can be done in 1 or 2 changes instead of 3 or fewer, but with double-backing via STP.

The only places you can get to with no more than one change are Hendon, Cricklewood & Kentish Town, the only stops skipped by the Luton semi-fasts - given the social/economic make up of those places I would expect demand to be pretty limited anyway. Radlett/Elstree & Borehamwood and Mill Hill are all accessible from the East Midlands via one change at Luton or Luton Airport Parkway.

There's probably a better argument for the 2tph Corby service to stop at Luton Airport Parkway where a half hourly non-stop service to/from London might boost the competitive position of the Airport and maybe for 1tph from Nottingham or Sheffield to stop at Luton for interchange to stations between there and London.

 

[CMS]

Deleted

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Can't argue with that! If they take a good chunk of airport traffic, that should be increase chances of getting a seat at Harpenden and St Albans. Plus, as you mention it'd somewhat appease the airport who are lobbying for expansion and for 4tph calls on EMT (both of which I hope do not happen, but that's for another thread)!

Regarding some other points, upon double checking, the semi-fasts are timetabled so that off-peak a Bedford will overtake them but southbound they depart SAC just after a Brighton and arrive just before the next Gatwick. In the peaks, it looks like they're all overtaken. As for West Hampstead, since the semi-fasts have come in, they could take that passenger flow. There is definitely demand for such a flow on weekends and Wembley event days but apart from that it's only 20-30 per train which is predominantly airport traffic which could use the semi-fasts. The way TL is going, even with all the timetable padding, the quicker trains get on and off the fast lines, the better. After years of travelling on the route, the only time I witness delays casually (i.e. not during network-wide disruption) extending as opposed to being maintained or reduced is by trains waiting around West Hampstead or Radlett Junctions.

Some good points there , but note the West Hampstead calls on the fasts (increased a few years ago) , have built up a steady patronage of more than airport passengers - really good for access to the North London line in particular so it would be a huge shame (and disbenefit) to take them off, though granted the ex Luton semi- fasts are useful (until Brent North / Cross comes in and slows them down marginally)

The great unknown is the Crossrail at Farringdon effect , which I suspect will increase passengers all day at West Hampstead off the NLL / JLE towards the mecca of Canary Wharf and even Paddington. I often cut the corner to and from Paddington using the ever so useful TLK fast trains. (though Crossrail will almost certainly be quicker)

 

[hooverboy]

The great unknown is the Crossrail at Farringdon effect , which I suspect will increase passengers all day at West Hampstead off the NLL / JLE towards the mecca of Canary Wharf and even Paddington. I often cut the corner to and from Paddington using the ever so useful TLK fast trains. (though Crossrail will almost certainly be quicker)

FWIW I think farringdon interchange will be a godsend.It'll cut down travel time to/from heathrow by half an hour,which is not to be sniffed at.
for tube users,i guess once crossrail is up and running the central line will be bearable again!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

FWIW I think farringdon interchange will be a godsend.It'll cut down travel time to/from heathrow by half an hour,which is not to be sniffed at.
for tube users,i guess once crossrail is up and running the central line will be bearable again!

Not to mention the Circle and Met line .......

 

[Class 170101]

Several months ago when there were problems, an EMT HST set stopped just south of the Down Fast platform waiting for the platform signal at the north end to clear rather than stop in the platform itself - there is a banner repeater so the driver knew when the signal cleared. I was one of several people working in the preserved St Albans South box that day and it seemed quite odd having a train stopped right outside the box!

Trains with slam door stock (Mark I, II and III) tend to stand off where possible as it prevents people running upto doors and trying to pull them open with all the issues that causes. I have been on a Mark III set where the conductor has had to give right of way from the window on seeing no doors on catches so drivers tend to stand off in that scenario.