Reducing TPE core service to improve reliability and overcrowding

[Philip]

The service is not every 10 minutes now. From December the four fasts between Leeds and Victoria will be on a 15 minute clockface timetable, departing on the quarter hours from each end. The Hull - Piccadilly semi-fast and the stopper will be squeezed into two of the quarter hour gaps. But gaps between the 3tph Leeds departures from Piccadilly will be 37/1/22 minutes!

Even on a clockface timetable, loadings will vary between services, because many passengers want Piccadilly not Victoria and many passengers travel through Leeds or Manchester to the various destinations either side.

The latter point isn't the case anymore; Victoria has more connections to the west than Piccadilly has and is also considered to be in a much better area to go into Manchester than Piccadilly is.

 

[Philip]

I would say the best solution for increasing performance on the core route is to convert the Newcastle-Airport to a York-Victoria service and run non-stop between Leeds and Manchester, to enable double units for the service (10 coaches). Northern could then pick up the Huddersfield-Leeds service that would be lost, once the additional DMUs arrive.

 

[LittleAH]

Scarborough to York is already getting a second (Northern this time) train per hour at some point, and despite calls for this to be an extension of the Blackpool service, a standalone shuttle makes more sense: there's already enough complaints about the current long-distance service so introducing a second wouldn't be smart. A shuttle can operate from the Scarborough bay rather than being squeezed into the only two through platforms with access to the Scarborough line.

Portion-working the Airport services wouldn't go down too well, as you'd be reducing frequency from West Yorkshire and beyond to the Airport by half, and causing one of the services each hour to have more issues with luggage as a result.

I can think of a few ways of easing the problems:

• Keep the stoppers split, transfer to Northern who can operate them with 195s which should be nippy enough to keep out of the way.
• Cap fast services at 5tph until the route upgrade is completed. 2tph (TPE) for Stalybridge and Dewsbury as current.
• Extend the Northern Huddersfield to Castleford service to York, as this will provide an alternative route and take some of the pressure off TPE.
• Once the route upgrade is done, the Huddersfield to Leeds local goes electric and runs every 30mins.
• If there's a business case for it, TPE can then have their precious 6tph without the skip-stopping fudge, with the 6th service being a second Hull run rather than terminating at Leeds.

Chances of 195's operating Northern stopping services are slim at best. If you transfer it back to Northern, no doubt you'd end up with 150's then delaying TPE further. Only way they'd go back to Northern is with electrification.

Furthermore, it isn't TPE's 'precious' 6TPH, it is a franchise requirement. It is what it is until TRU is completed.

 

[Greybeard33]

The latter point isn't the case anymore; Victoria has more connections to the west than Piccadilly has and is also considered to be in a much better area to go into Manchester than Piccadilly is.

Indeed many TPE passengers to/from Manchester are satisfied with Victoria, but many want Piccadilly, either for local destinations in that half of the city or for connections to points south. Someone travelling from, say, Stockport to Leeds will not spend 20 minutes walking across Manchester. Conversely, someone travelling from Leeds to Liverpool will not get on an Airport service. So, as I said, loadings vary between services depending on the relative demand for the different destinations.

I would say the best solution for increasing performance on the core route is to convert the Newcastle-Airport to a York-Victoria service and run non-stop between Leeds and Manchester, to enable double units for the service (10 coaches). Northern could then pick up the Huddersfield-Leeds service that would be lost, once the additional DMUs arrive.

Victoria does not have platform or siding capacity to accommodate 10-car (or even 5-car) terminating services during a 20+ minute turnaround.

 

[Starmill]

It's highly likely that outside of the peak they will have to resort to some aggressive pricing to try and fill all the extra seats as it is.

TransPennine Express also price very aggressively as it is.

Case in point: Manchester to Stockport in the evening peak. I wanted to travel after 1600 recently, and in no particular hurry.

Examining the prices at this time of day we have loads of singles at £4.10 on frequent Northern departures or the CrossCountry services at 1605 and 1627, the Transport for Wales service at 1631 is the same, and so is the East Midlands Railway one at 1643. Then we have the 1555 Virgin Trains service at £3.10, and the 1615, 1635 and 1655 at £3.40. But did I choose any of these trains? No I didn't. I chose the 1619 TransPennine Express - the one that was £2.80 and therefore the cheapest. It was a crush loaded 3 car with people standing going to Sheffield and beyond. A suspiciously large number of people got off the train at Stockport - although we all had quite a bit of difficulty in doing so because there were just so many standing passengers.

It's like this every day. The VT services just before and after it will usually carry a handful of unoccupied Standard seats. Some might say 'oh but why bother to save only £1.30?'. I might reply 'If there is a train timed to meet your needs at a lower price, why spend an extra £1.30?'. There wasn't a big risk of disruption because I was able to buy my ticket after I had noted that the train left its origin on time.

Doubtless TransPennine Express are thrilled to be getting £2.80 from me for this, as if I'd paid £4.10 for a ticket valid on any train they would be getting a desultory few pence. Overcrowding ain't no accident.

 

[Philip]

TransPennine Express also price very aggressively as it is.

Case in point: Manchester to Stockport in the evening peak. I wanted to travel after 1600 recently, and in no particular hurry.

Examining the prices at this time of day we have loads of singles at £4.10 on frequent Northern departures or the CrossCountry services at 1605 and 1627, the Transport for Wales service at 1631 is the same, and so is the East Midlands Railway one at 1643. Then we have the 1555 Virgin Trains service at £3.10, and the 1615, 1635 and 1655 at £3.40. But did I choose any of these trains? No I didn't. I chose the 1619 TransPennine Express - the one that was £2.80 and therefore the cheapest. It was a crush loaded 3 car with people standing going to Sheffield and beyond. A suspiciously large number of people got off the train at Stockport - although we all had quite a bit of difficulty in doing so because there were just so many standing passengers.

It's like this every day. The VT services just before and after it will usually carry a handful of unoccupied Standard seats. Some might say 'oh but why bother to save only £1.30?'. I might reply 'If there is a train timed to meet your needs at a lower price, why spend an extra £1.30?'. There wasn't a big risk of disruption because I was able to buy my ticket after I had noted that the train left its origin on time.

Doubtless TransPennine Express are thrilled to be getting £2.80 from me for this, as if I'd paid £4.10 for a ticket valid on any train they would be getting a desultory few pence. Overcrowding ain't no accident.

Conversely, you could argue that it is the responsibility of the passengers to make the decision about either going for the cheapest option, or paying a bit more to go on a train that is likely to be less crowded and so help to spread the load more evenly. Particularly as a lot of passengers 'in the know' about cheaper TOC-specific fares are also likely to know about the type and length of the train they are paying to board and have a fair idea about the loadings.

 

[Philip]

Since terminating long trains at Victoria seems to be out of the question, here is a different solution:

*Completely remove the Newcastle-Airport from the timetable
*Use the spare units to double up all or the majority of the Liverpool-Edinburgh services, perhaps splitting and joining at Newcastle or York if practical, so that it allows for an hourly 10-car formation on the core route during the day. Run non-stop Leeds-Manchester and Manchester-Liverpool to avoid platform length problems. Transfer the Newton-le-Willows stop to the Scarborough or the planned Liverpool-West Yorkshire Northern Connect service. I would price Leeds-Manchester advance fares cheaper for this service to try and persuade passengers making this journey to use this service and not to overcrowd the shorter formations.
*Run Manchester-Hull non-stop Stalybridge to Huddersfield, with 6-coach 185 formations.
*Reinstate the all-stops Manchester-Huddersfield, run by either Northern or TPE and using a couple of 185s with FC declassified.
*Double the frequency of the local Huddersfield-Leeds, both run by Northern and using 195s once Northern's additional DMUs arrive. Half hourly stopper and half hourly fast calling at Dewsbury only, the fast using double formations during the busier times.

I make that four fast trains per hour on the core route, a Piccadilly one with 6-coach formations and a Victoria one with 10-coach formations, the other two with 5-coach formations. This would allow the local Hudds-Manc to go back to all stops and halve the number of trains going over the Ordsall Chord. A path to the Airport would also be created and going from 6tph to 5 should give a bit of breathing space to the Standedge line. Huddersfield would lose two services to Manchester, but even so 4tph of which at least three would either be 5 or 6 coaches should provide enough capacity.

 

[Starmill]

Conversely, you could argue that it is the responsibility of the passengers to make the decision about either going for the cheapest option, or paying a bit more to go on a train that is likely to be less crowded

There's absolutely no possibility of this in the real world. How would anyone know? What people do is they go onto their apps, and choose the cheapest price they can see, then get that train. There is basically no way to know at the point of purchase how overcrowded the train will be. It depends what day of the week it is, and what the formation of the train is - also not something publicly available.

help to spread the load more evenly.

If the train companies deliberately create an incentive for people to catch the busiest trains, people will follow their incentives. It's absolutely no use blaming consumers for their rational choices.

 

[Philip]

There's absolutely no possibility of this in the real world. How would anyone know? What people do is they go onto their apps, and choose the cheapest price they can see, then get that train. There is basically no way to know at the point of purchase how overcrowded the train will be. It depends what day of the week it is, and what the formation of the train is - also not something publicly available.
If the train companies deliberately create an incentive for people to catch the busiest trains, people will follow their incentives. It's absolutely no use blaming consumers for their rational choices.

It won't take that long for a regular traveller to get a good idea about the type of train that is likely to turn up and how busy it is likely to be. TPE are cynical and playing the game over the other TOCs, but frequent customers of the service ought to take a bit more responsibility and consideration towards the longer distance passengers using the train, over saving a few pennies.

 

[Starmill]

It won't take that long for a regular traveller to get a good idea about the type of train that is likely to turn up and how busy it is likely to be. TPE are cynical and playing the game over the other TOCs, but frequent customers of the service ought to take a bit more responsibility and consideration towards the longer distance passengers using the train, over saving a few pennies.

If you really believe that then that's a crackers argument that fundamentally misunderstands ordinary consumer behaviour. A tiny handful of enthusiasts might think in this way, but a statistically significant proportion of users.

The train companies, however, have the power to realign the incentives by lowering their fares, and balancing loadings. They choose not to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the train companies deliberately create an incentive for people to catch the busiest trains, people will follow their incentives. It's absolutely no use blaming consumers for their rational choices.

Quite. There needs to be a disincentive for using an "IC" train for a short journey - the German supplementary fare is a decent way of doing this. Compulsory reservations also does it but that's a faff for the IC passengers too.

For some passengers where speed is more important than money they will pay up and still take it, but it manages it a bit. Remember that even 5p for a carrier bag or the tiny amount of the "sugar tax" for a proper Coke is enough to influence choices - it doesn't have to be a king's ransom - a quid more would easily do it.

 

[Philip]

If you really believe that then that's a crackers argument that fundamentally misunderstands ordinary consumer behaviour. A tiny handful of enthusiasts might think in this way, but a statistically significant proportion of users.

The train companies, however, have the power to realign the incentives by lowering their fares, and balancing loadings. They choose not to.

Surely if any TOC is at fault here then it is TPE for undercutting the peak time fare charged by everyone else in this period, by offering cheap day singles. The railway needs ticket revenue, so it's reasonable to expect a peak time rate to be in place and for passengers to pay it. TPE are going against this and so making it difficult for the other TOCs, as well as many of their Sheffield-Cleethorpes passengers who have to stand until Stockport.

 

[Starmill]

The railway needs ticket revenue, so it's reasonable to expect a peak time rate to be in place and for passengers to pay it.

Why is this 'reasonable'? Collusion between different companies to keep prices high, as you suggest, is not just unreasonable but likely to be unlawful under Competition law.

 

[yorkie]

Surely if any TOC is at fault here then it is TPE for undercutting the peak time fare charged by everyone else in this period, by offering cheap day singles. The railway needs ticket revenue, so it's reasonable to expect a peak time rate to be in place and for passengers to pay it. TPE are going against this and so making it difficult for the other TOCs, as well as many of their Sheffield-Cleethorpes passengers who have to stand until Stockport.

Sorry but it is unclear exactly what you are suggesting here?

I do not see how it would be lawful to deny any particular TOC the right to set the prices below that of competing TOCs, unless you can explain how it would be? Have I misunderstood your proposals?

 

[Starmill]

TPE are going against this and so making it difficult for the other TOCs, as well as many of their Sheffield-Cleethorpes passengers who have to stand until Stockport.

I don't think they're bothered about their passengers going east of Sheffield on that service. It's difficult to get a cheap ticket in advance, and they charge on the day almost £45 one way for Manchester to Grimsby - and you will almost certainly be on your feet from Manchester at that price. They seem a lot more interested in selling loads of tickets to Stockport for £2.80.

The irony is that the 1719, a six car train, is probably a better choice for Manchester to Stockport than any of the Northern trains around that time, which are wedged with people going to other commuter stations (and who have far fewer trains than those going to Stockport). So it can make sense in part.

 

[Starmill]

For some passengers where speed is more important than money they will pay up and still take it, but it manages it a bit. Remember that even 5p for a carrier bag or the tiny amount of the "sugar tax" for a proper Coke is enough to influence choices - it doesn't have to be a king's ransom - a quid more would easily do it.

The impact of the sugar levy is sometimes as little as 30p, and it still seems to have the 'nudge' effect that it was intended to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The impact of the sugar levy is sometimes as little as 30p, and it still seems to have the 'nudge' effect that it was intended to.

Indeed. Even the "bag tax" does at 5p. If a given person is price sensitive, it usually takes very little difference to sway them. I doubt Northern would sell very many Advances otherwise, as they are usually priced not much below the relevant walk ups (when purchasing a return journey) for a massive loss of flexibility. VTWC can be similar near the time of travel - but people do buy the Advances.

 

[Philip]

Sorry but it is unclear exactly what you are suggesting here?

I do not see how it would be lawful to deny any particular TOC the right to set the prices below that of competing TOCs, unless you can explain how it would be? Have I misunderstood your proposals?

The peak fare is in place to get maximum revenue from passengers at the busiest times of travel (and unlike many cynics, I believe the main purpose for ticket revenue is to keep the rolling stock and infrastructure pots well topped up, rather than lining shareholders pockets). So it doesn't seem right that one rail company goes against this, and sets its own aggressive fares in order to gain a bigger chunk of the revenue all for itself.

A compulsory flat any permitted fare for the peak times would at least share the revenue between the TOCs and in most cases ensure a better balance of passenger loadings.

 

[yorkie]

One of the principles of privatisation and our fares structure is that any TOC that does not set the inter-available fare is able to set their own fares that undercut other TOCs

This has been the case for over 20 years and is nothing new.

Your proposal is to abolish all TOC specific fares? or abolish all walk-up TOC specific fares? or abolish all TOC specific fares valid at times that are defined (how?) as being at "peak" times? or something else?

 

[Starmill]

The peak fare is in place to get maximum revenue from passengers at the busiest times of travel

I don't think this is true at all.

Until the 'dedicated' fares came along between Stockport and Manchester, the one way fare was the same price on every single train all day.

and unlike many cynics, I believe the main purpose for ticket revenue is to keep the rolling stock and infrastructure pots well topped up, rather than lining shareholders pockets

I don't think anyone has especially suggested that? High fares doesn't mean greater fares revenue, either. You're falling into a common trap.

A compulsory flat any permitted fare for the peak times would at least share the revenue between the TOCs and in most cases ensure a better balance of passenger loadings.

Clearly TPE take issue with the very small proportion of the fare they are allocated, though, and think they can do better by undercutting their competitors. They do this all over the show - even between Meadowhall and Sheffield, where they also run just 1 train per hour. A flat fare would make the loading issues worse, because more people would use the overcrowded and very short CrossCountry, TfW and Northern trains, and fewer the Virgin Trains services.

 

[Philip]

One of the principles of privatisation and our fares structure is that any TOC that does not set the inter-available fare is able to set their own fares that undercut other TOCs

This has been the case for over 20 years and is nothing new.

Your proposal is to abolish all TOC specific fares? or abolish all walk-up TOC specific fares? or abolish all TOC specific fares valid at times that are defined (how?) as being at "peak" times? or something else?

It is to abolish all walk up TOC specific fares during the peak times. This isn't exactly unknown either; for example TfW don't offer their local CDS between Wilmslow and Manchester in the peak time and they don't have a SDS ticket for the same journey.

 

[yorkie]

It is to abolish all walk up TOC specific fares during the peak times. This isn't exactly unknown either; for example TfW don't offer their local CDS between Wilmslow and Manchester in the peak time and they don't have a SDS ticket for the same journey.

How would you achieve this and how do you define "peak" times?

 

[Philip]

Clearly TPE take issue with the very small proportion of the fare they are allocated, though, and think they can do better by undercutting their competitors. They do this all over the show - even between Meadowhall and Sheffield, where they also run just 1 train per hour. A flat fare would make the loading issues worse, because more people would use the overcrowded and very short CrossCountry, TfW and Northern trains, and fewer the Virgin Trains services.

On the last point, why would fewer people use the Virgin services, particularly compared to the TfW and CrossCountry?

 

[Philip]

How would you achieve this and how do you define "peak" times?

Speaking for this area, I would use restriction code ND which defines 'peak' as until 09:29 and then from 16:01-18:29. Only any permitted tickets on local routes valid during these times.

 

[Starmill]

On the last point, why would fewer people use the Virgin services, particularly compared to the TfW and CrossCountry?

Because anyone who currently buys a cheaper Virgin Trains Only ticket and waits for a VT service will, if all prices are the same, not be incetivised to wait and will be far more likely to board the first available train, and 'peak' XC or TfW services are among the ones that suffer most.

 

[yorkie]

Speaking for this area, I would use restriction code ND which defines 'peak' as until 09:29 and then from 16:01-18:29. Only any permitted tickets on local routes valid during these times.

Ah yes the dreaded "ND" code which is non-compliant with consumer law. Lovely.

Would that be applied nationwide?

If so, to clarify, you'd be barring cheap walk-up fares on the Highland Chieftain, even though it has more capacity than the Scotrail trains, in order to solve capacity issues on TPE?

So we can get the 1546 Euston to Crewe on a WMT only; but departing after 1600 we need to go via High Wycombe to avoid Virgin's high fares as that's a geographical restriction rather than a TOC one (so is not threatened by your proposals) however if a passenger was to travel from Euston to Wolverton on the 1546 they would need to pay more than the price to Crewe. (Euston - Crewe being valid on a Super Off Peak Return but Euston - Wolverton would require an Anytime due to the change of trains during the "peak" period)

Sounds great!

 

[Starmill]

Speaking for this area, I would use restriction code ND which defines 'peak' as until 09:29 and then from 16:01-18:29. Only any permitted tickets on local routes valid during these times.

ND is deeply flawed. It prices people who want to buy returns off trains that are totally empty heading towards Manchester in the afternoon. It also penalises randomly for making changes of train, reduces vastly the attractiveness of stations with limited services, and imposes higher prices on routes where no peak flow exists e.g. between Manchester Airport and Wilmslow.

Far, far better would be a time restriction like H4, which prohibits boarding at a list of central stations at the busiest times.

 

[LittleAH]

Since terminating long trains at Victoria seems to be out of the question, here is a different solution:

*Completely remove the Newcastle-Airport from the timetable
*Use the spare units to double up all or the majority of the Liverpool-Edinburgh services, perhaps splitting and joining at Newcastle or York if practical, so that it allows for an hourly 10-car formation on the core route during the day. Run non-stop Leeds-Manchester and Manchester-Liverpool to avoid platform length problems. Transfer the Newton-le-Willows stop to the Scarborough or the planned Liverpool-West Yorkshire Northern Connect service. I would price Leeds-Manchester advance fares cheaper for this service to try and persuade passengers making this journey to use this service and not to overcrowd the shorter formations.
*Run Manchester-Hull non-stop Stalybridge to Huddersfield, with 6-coach 185 formations.
*Reinstate the all-stops Manchester-Huddersfield, run by either Northern or TPE and using a couple of 185s with FC declassified.
*Double the frequency of the local Huddersfield-Leeds, both run by Northern and using 195s once Northern's additional DMUs arrive. Half hourly stopper and half hourly fast calling at Dewsbury only, the fast using double formations during the busier times.

I make that four fast trains per hour on the core route, a Piccadilly one with 6-coach formations and a Victoria one with 10-coach formations, the other two with 5-coach formations. This would allow the local Hudds-Manc to go back to all stops and halve the number of trains going over the Ordsall Chord. A path to the Airport would also be created and going from 6tph to 5 should give a bit of breathing space to the Standedge line. Huddersfield would lose two services to Manchester, but even so 4tph of which at least three would either be 5 or 6 coaches should provide enough capacity.

- 10 car trains can only fit on limited numbers of platforms at Liverpool Lime St [LIV]. Furthermore, you are denying customers in Huddersfield, Newton-le-Willows/Lea Green greater connectivity across the North of England and Scotland.
- From December TPE are taking out the Mossley stop on the Hull - Manchester's off-peak, with Mossley going into the stopper.

If your idea happened, I'd be fuming as Huddersfield is the station I use most and one of the busiest in Yorkshire. All in all - the above is a pretty terrible idea.

 

[ScarbJohn]

Scarborough to York is already getting a second (Northern this time) train per hour at some point, and despite calls for this to be an extension of the Blackpool service, a standalone shuttle makes more sense: there's already enough complaints about the current long-distance service so introducing a second wouldn't be smart. A shuttle can operate from the Scarborough bay rather than being squeezed into the only two through platforms with access to the Scarborough line.

Portion-working the Airport services wouldn't go down too well, as you'd be reducing frequency from West Yorkshire and beyond to the Airport by half, and causing one of the services each hour to have more issues with luggage as a result.

I can think of a few ways of easing the problems:

• Keep the stoppers split, transfer to Northern who can operate them with 195s which should be nippy enough to keep out of the way.
• Cap fast services at 5tph until the route upgrade is completed. 2tph (TPE) for Stalybridge and Dewsbury as current.
• Extend the Northern Huddersfield to Castleford service to York, as this will provide an alternative route and take some of the pressure off TPE.
• Once the route upgrade is done, the Huddersfield to Leeds local goes electric and runs every 30mins.
• If there's a business case for it, TPE can then have their precious 6tph without the skip-stopping fudge, with the 6th service being a second Hull run rather than terminating at Leeds.

Has anyone seen evidence that Northern is actually doing anything about introducing this Scarborough to York service which is mentioned in the 2015 franchise agreement? I could not find anything on the Northern website -not even in the longer terms upgrades which are mentioned. Can the Department for Transport force Northern to introduce this service -or get another operator to provide it if not? As it is instead of the two trains an hour scenario envisaged in the franchise agreement for much of the day it is one every two hours on TPE which must have the longest list of excuses for cancellations in the book.