Essentially it was making use of the xx33 additional peak path. In the 1733 and 1833 hour that is used for an extra to Liverpool (so benefits users in those times), it's only the 1633 hour it was used as an extra service via Preston enabling the Wigan and Warrington stops to be removed from the 1630.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ideas for more services like Lumo on the UK rail network?
- Thread starter Jorge Da Silva
- Start date
- Status
Essentially it was making use of the xx33 additional peak path. In the 1733 and 1833 hour that is used for an extra to Liverpool (so benefits users in those times), it's only the 1633 hour it was used as an extra service via Preston enabling the Wigan and Warrington stops to be removed from the 1630.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
My idea for an open access route is: London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly via Birmingham New Street and Walsall. In this case, I am assuming Crosscountry and Avanti do not restore their pre Covid timetable services of 3 services an hour from London to Birmingham and 2 between Birmingham and Manchester. This route to me has the following benefits:
1) It provides an alternative cheaper but slower route from London to Manchester.
2) It provides a direct link from Walsall to London and Manchester
3) It improves services between Birmingham and Manchester. One train per hour from Manchester to Birmingham seems particularly poor given they are the second and third largest cities in the UK outside London and are relatively close geographically.
1) It provides an alternative cheaper but slower route from London to Manchester.
2) It provides a direct link from Walsall to London and Manchester
3) It improves services between Birmingham and Manchester. One train per hour from Manchester to Birmingham seems particularly poor given they are the second and third largest cities in the UK outside London and are relatively close geographically.
How is it going to be cheaper to run a service via Birmingham and Walsall from London to Manchester than one which is direct?
As a general point, I don't know why it is assumed that sending trains on circuitous routes magically enables the operator to charge a lower fare.
If someone really wanted to offer a Lumo type service from London to Manchester they would seek non stop paths, get the journey time under two hours and run the service once every 150 minutes because that would be the cheapest way to do it with the greatest market.
Tenuous as to what the demand for that is.
Not necessarily competitive against the route via Wolverhampton though.
I suspect this looks good on a map and Walsall is perhaps an underserved area of Birmingham with regard to train services but Wrexham & Shropshire didn't take huge loads from Tame Bridge. I imagine it would be difficult to make a business case.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
I see your point here about it being more expensive to the operator, particularly as any operator would have to charge lower fares to attract passengers given the longer journey time. Such a service would be somewhat dependent on people taking shorter hops to make it work, which may not work well for open access operators.
I imagine Birmingham to Manchester on it own would be more feasible if the Crosscountry second hourly service between these cities does not return.
I would imagine if it was going to be profitable DfT would want CrossCountry to put it back in. Yes, there are ways new operators can reduce some costs (eg staff defined benefit pensions, no first class etc) but would it be enough to tip the balance?
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,737
Mr Abstractive is waving and laughing at this.
To be fair, if (somehow) they could accelerate the Birmingham-Manchester journey time sufficiently (e.g. running via Crewe), they could "do a Lumo" and claim that they are generating new rail demand by abstracting from road travel.
It was also aimed at returning business travellers (meetings finishing at 4pm) rather than London&SE leisure travellers going on a break to Scotland.
MML really needs a low cost Lumo type operation more than most to challenge and break the high fare, short train, current overcrowding and abysmal Sunday service monopoly of EMR, especially as passengers within the catchment of those stations do not have a nearby low cost alternative like West Midlands passengers do from Coventry, Birmingham etc do, which keeps fares of the main operator Avanti lower that they might otherwise be. But I accept this is never going to happen on MML as such a service would most definitely fail the 'not primarily abstractive' test and there is also the issue of paths not available.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
In terms of abstraction, I can see how Hull trains and Grand Central could pass the not primarily abstractive test, but how did Lumo pass it? They are competing very directly with LNER.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,891
I'm not that sold on the Lumo model and even then, I think the ECML has the right mix of factors to just about make it work.
The problem is that slower trains are more expensive to run than faster ones. You essentially have your rolling stock and crew covering less daily distance, increasing the cost. Now, on lines with low speed limits and slower trains, this is probably a wash, because there are less strict maintenance requirements to poddle about at 40, versus say 140mph.
But if you are running an intercity service, you are certainly not saving money taking a long, circuitous route.
The most cost effective solution is to make the faster trains longer and increase their speed, so the same rolling stock + crew can complete more journeys in a day. Preferably on dedicated infrastructure designed with the stresses of high speed operations in mind.
It may seem ridiculous to maintain that going faster is cheaper, but just look at the cost of flying versus passenger ships for many routes. Of course ships even further show the cost of going slow, in that passengers require better accomodations for those longer periods of time (e.g. proper beds, sit down meals, activities, etc.) This also has a knock on effect on emissions - on transatlantic routes, the ships emit more carbon per passenger than flying.
The problem is that slower trains are more expensive to run than faster ones. You essentially have your rolling stock and crew covering less daily distance, increasing the cost. Now, on lines with low speed limits and slower trains, this is probably a wash, because there are less strict maintenance requirements to poddle about at 40, versus say 140mph.
But if you are running an intercity service, you are certainly not saving money taking a long, circuitous route.
The most cost effective solution is to make the faster trains longer and increase their speed, so the same rolling stock + crew can complete more journeys in a day. Preferably on dedicated infrastructure designed with the stresses of high speed operations in mind.
It may seem ridiculous to maintain that going faster is cheaper, but just look at the cost of flying versus passenger ships for many routes. Of course ships even further show the cost of going slow, in that passengers require better accomodations for those longer periods of time (e.g. proper beds, sit down meals, activities, etc.) This also has a knock on effect on emissions - on transatlantic routes, the ships emit more carbon per passenger than flying.
They are arguing that, whilst they have some abstraction from LNER, the majority of their demand comes from abstracting air travel demand (and wholly new demand generated by their bottom fare tiers that undercuts LNER's cheapest fares)
Given the capacity issues on the WCML, you'd likely have to run a service on the MML, which is far from perfect but the only way to connect Manchester and then Glasgow, although since it won't stop elsewhere you'd gain some time back.
Getting it through Manchester would be just as problematic as running it on the WCML.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,312
The access decision was made in 2015/16 long before the latest ORR rules were in place.
I was going to maybe find a way around the outskirts, connect to Metrolink and be all smart about it, but doing some research that looks just as impossible. However, it did make me realise we could include Sheffield and Leeds instead, and connect up to the WCML at Carlisle to reach Glasgow that way.
Connections between Leeds and Preston, Lancaster or Carlisle do not offer competitive journey times though.
Even if it's only London, Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow? Talking Lancaster or Carlisle only. Who on earth would suggest Preston from Leeds?
Because Leeds-Preston or Lancaster-Glasgow is almost as fast as direct with good connections and present stopping patterns. Leeds-Carlisle direct is potentially faster of course, but London-Glasgow via Leeds won't compete with air end to end which is what Lumo claim they are doing.
Well how fast would the fastest route (in your opinions) take from London to Glasgow via Leeds?
At least six hours? 60 miles / hour max between Skipton and Carlisle, with no way to overtake freight or Northern in between.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,891
Yeah the MML is pretty full up with the existing services. Remember that you also introduce diesel running which is an extra expense the WCML doesn't have.
Sheffield station is full up of services, as is the Hope Valley if you wanted to go into Manchester that way...
When looking at existing infrastructure, we keep running into the same barriers of practicality (a.k.a it isn't...) Really HS2 is the only answer to this, with its addition of far more capacity. At that point, the conversation of low cost operators will be gone, because HS2 services will be cheaper to run than those on existing infrastructure. Once the infrastructure for HS2 has been built, it will be better off just using that to its maximum capacity.
I think we'll still be having capacity issues even with HS2 given the lack of capacity it will have at Euston Station.
What lack of capacity is that?
They reduced the size of the Euston rebuild with less platforms, which means less trains per hour.
The DfT press release claims that it will still support 18 trains per hour.
If the capacity was there (which it almost certainly wouldn't be) the Lumo-style service that would make sense to me would be Newcastle-Plymouth to undercut the ludicrous fares and cramped accommodation offered by XC.
Newcastle - Durham - Darlington - York - Leeds - Sheffield - Derby - Birmingham - Bristol TM - Exeter - Plymouth.
No short distance fares available (to limit abstraction) so e.g. from Newcastle tickets available only to Leeds/Sheffield and beyond; from Derby only to Bristol and beyond.
And, yes, I'm expecting disagreements on precise stopping patterns. (I pondered a reversal at Gloucester to offer better long distance options there.)
Newcastle - Durham - Darlington - York - Leeds - Sheffield - Derby - Birmingham - Bristol TM - Exeter - Plymouth.
No short distance fares available (to limit abstraction) so e.g. from Newcastle tickets available only to Leeds/Sheffield and beyond; from Derby only to Bristol and beyond.
And, yes, I'm expecting disagreements on precise stopping patterns. (I pondered a reversal at Gloucester to offer better long distance options there.)
I'm confused as to how an open access operator would significantly undercut CrossCountry on this route. There are three possibilities - higher load factors, cheaper operational costs and lower payments to the government.
If higher load factors were the answer, then it would make more sense for the existing operator to provide more capacity on the current services.
Cheaper operational costs probably mean worse terms and conditions for the traincrew. CrossCountry already 'buy in' train maintenance and station facilities from third parties so no obvious saving there.
Lower payments to the government just mean the shortfall needs to come from somewhere else.
To be more like Lumo, you would probably need to run Newcastle - Leeds - Bristol (with Exeter and Plymouth served at the ends of the day because you would want to access servicing at Laira but it represents poor utilisation to run daytime services beyond Bristol when they could be heading back to Newcastle). Avoiding Birmingham would take some time off the journey but might lead to lower loadings.
The faster journey time over the corridor might make the offering more attractive than XC (although finding a path would not be easy) but is there really pent up demand to fill trains day in day out between those three stations (and into the West Country at the end of the day)?
Is Newcastle a major airport? Or Plymouth? I thought the idea of Lumo was to help cut regional flights.
Bristol and Exeter both have flights to Newcastle tomorrow - in Bristol's case there are two.
The railway can't hope to offer a journey time anything like that available by plane though.
- Status