Limited stop trains

[Shrop]

For some years long distance trains have been timetabled to stop a lot more regularly than they used to. A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Some passengers like to be able to relax during their journey, but when there are no less than EIGHT stops during this journey of just three and a half hours, all of which involve a fair bit of passengers shuffling around, this is hardly conducive to relaxation. Defenders of rail operations will say that trains don’t lose much time having to stop due to wonderful acceleration these days, and they will also say that congestion on railways simply doesn’t allow for long distance faster services, but these arguments are never all that convincing.

The additional six stops in this example does actually cost the best part of half an hour, and when it suits rail operators such as when they want to justify not investing in more tracks, they can often find paths to overtake, and Bristol could provide one such opportunity.

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker? It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done! Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

 

[bramling]

For some years long distance trains have been timetabled to stop a lot more regularly than they used to. A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Some passengers like to be able to relax during their journey, but when there are no less than EIGHT stops during this journey of just three and a half hours, all of which involve a fair bit of passengers shuffling around, this is hardly conducive to relaxation. Defenders of rail operations will say that trains don’t lose much time having to stop due to wonderful acceleration these days, and they will also say that congestion on railways simply doesn’t allow for long distance faster services, but these arguments are never all that convincing.

The additional six stops in this example does actually cost the best part of half an hour, and when it suits rail operators such as when they want to justify not investing in more tracks, they can often find paths to overtake, and Bristol could provide one such opportunity.

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker? It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done! Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

Personally in principle I’d favour it.

The trouble is such services are very difficult to path on a railway where standard clock-face timetables are the norm. You essentially have to tinker with everything else simply to make one train fit, as well as the question of how you serve the places from whom you’ve taken out stops on the fast train.

 

[leytongabriel]

if there weren't so many train announcements for each stop it would help long distance passengers have a more relaxing journey

 

[Shrop]

Personally in principle I’d favour it.

The trouble is such services are very difficult to path on a railway where standard clock-face timetables are the norm. You essentially have to tinker with everything else simply to make one train fit, as well as the question of how you serve the places from whom you’ve taken out stops on the fast train.

I'm pleased that you'd favour it in principle. I'm not thinking of replacing any services though, I'd like to think there was a way of providing a limited stop service around one every three or even every four hours, in addition to the existing services.
If capacity really is that much of an issue, surely we ought to be considering more tracks? Squeezing more and more people on to existing trains simply isn't sustainable for ever.

 

[JonathanH]

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker?

No.

A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Is the demand from Plymouth such that the other stops aren't important?

If you look at the current XC departure time from Plymouth, GWR are on the opposite side of the hour so it isn't possible to run with a departure time 30 minutes later. Further up the line, there will be other stopping trains and in the Birmingham area there are only two paths for Cross Country services. It just isn't going to happen because it doesn't recognise the interests of other users of the railway.

Having a train every hour at the same time, although there are currently gaps, is much more straightforward for passengers.

Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

No, they can't afford them.

If capacity really is that much of an issue, surely we ought to be considering more tracks?

Some extra tracks were put in place on Filton Bank. It doesn't make it easier to put in place an off-pattern Cross Country service.

I'm not thinking of replacing any services though, I'd like to think there was a way of providing a limited stop service around one every three or even every four hours, in addition to the existing services.

I think the GWR idea of running a more local based Plymouth to Cardiff service and potentially serving new passengers at additional stations has taken the capacity.

You are right that offering long distance trains that stop at fewer stations could potentially provide a more relaxing experience (eg like Lumo running without station calls between London and Newcastle) but practically on long routes with only two tracks they are impractical because there is more need to serve the intermediate stations on the route than there may have been historically. Favouring long-distance travel over the use of railways for shorter-distance travel doesn't favour the greater good.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done!

It can definitely be done. Three ways to do it:

1) take out the stops of the existing trains, causing those stations to lose frequency, and thereby losing a substantial proportion of the revenue in the floe

2) add some extra limited stop trains into the timetable. This will need extra infrastructure to allow the existing services to be overtaken without losing significant journey time, and also to provide for the extra trains. Particularly on the busier areas of the network, like the approaches to Birmingham, Birmingham itself, etc.

Personally I’m not at all convinced that either approach would be a good thing for the railway, or its passengers, as a whole.

 

[JonathanH]

Three ways to do it:

What is the third way? Is it a flying train that can jump over a stopping service?

 

[Bald Rick]

What is the third way? Is it a flying train that can jump over a stopping service?

Oh the third way is more obvious. Slip coaches....

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What is the third way?

Maybe installation of overtaking loops at strategic locations, or compulsory calls by the slower trains at intermediate multi-platform stations with through platforms, unless that's already covered in point two?

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe installation of overtaking loops at strategic locations?

That was the second way.

Passing loops already exist at plenty of locations between Plymouth and Birmingham (eg Totnes, Newton Abbot, Dawlish Warren, Exeter St Davids, Tiverton, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare, Bristol, Charfield, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester, Bromsgrove) but the time penalty for the looped train in a short loop isn't really acceptable. It would need a dynamic loop of some kind - eg four track running.

 

[edwin_m]

At present all the stops on journeys such as the OP's have a service at regular intervals, at the same minutes past each hour. If some trains were limited stop, those stops would be missing and others would probably be off-pattern due to the irregularities introduced into the timetable. I don't think the rather small benefits to some longer-distance passengers justifies the loss of a convenient service at all those stations.

The real answer is that some of those intermediate flows justify their own semi-fast train, which only runs as far as the next major station so may need a terminating platform but doesn't need overtakes.

 

[JonathanH]

The real answer is that some of those intermediate flows justify their own semi-fast train, which only runs as far as the next major station so may need a terminating platform but doesn't need overtakes.

At the same time, is it justified to remove long-distance services from any of the stations?

 

[Shrop]

One reason for posting this thread was because I used to commute every week from Shrewsbury to Fareham. It took a similar time by road as rail, and the cost was similar too, but I found the train more relaxing than tangling with traffic on the roads. That is, apart from being turfed out of my seat at Reading when heading northbound, when the seat reservations hadn't been displayed from Southampton, as happened a fair few times. And the frequent stops were a pain, and missing trains just because the doors were locked and wouldn't wait happened numerous times too. Travel via Newport was also a pain, as connections there were pure lottery, often missing the hourly onward train by less than one minute. Despite travelling by rail for this distance on average 3 times every month for several years, there were many, many times that things happened which really shouldn't have, not least that passengers were left to suffer and no explanation was given. I so often wished I could have travelled with a rail manager to point out things, but other passengers told me that rail managers knew better than to use the railways!
Which is all a shame, because I maintain that when they work, they're excellent.

 

[edwin_m]

At the same time, is it justified to remove long-distance services from any of the stations?

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the number of passengers making long-distance journeys and what alternatives might be available.

The ideal is for a non-stop service to station E to leave station A, then shortly afterwards a stopping service calling at B, C and D, arriving at E just in time to give a good connection into the next fast. But there are all sorts of reasons that might not be practical or economic.

One reason for posting this thread was because I used to commute every week from Shrewsbury to Fareham. It took a similar time by road as rail, and the cost was similar too, but I found the train more relaxing than tangling with traffic on the roads. That is, apart from being turfed out of my seat at Reading when heading northbound, when the seat reservations hadn't been displayed from Southampton, as happened a fair few times. And the frequent stops were a pain, and missing trains just because the doors were locked and wouldn't wait happened numerous times too. Travel via Newport was also a pain, as connections there were pure lottery, often missing the hourly onward train by less than one minute. Despite travelling by rail for this distance on average 3 times every month for several years, there were many, many times that things happened which really shouldn't have, not least that passengers were left to suffer and no explanation was given. I so often wished I could have travelled with a rail manager to point out things, but other passengers told me that rail managers knew better than to use the railways!
Which is all a shame, because I maintain that when they work, they're excellent.

Most of that is a reason to get some management focus on the failings of the existing service, not to remove many of the intermediate stops. Fareham for example is a smaller station midway between Southampton and Portsmouth, but I think currently all passing passenger trains stop there. That might not be the case if your suggestion was adopted.

 

[30907]

There was IIRC in the BR HST era precisely one Cross-country service that did Birmingham-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth, the "Cornishman" (1015 New St, 1335 Plymouth). Most services stopped as least as often as now, but not on a regular pattern.

I like my trains with fewer stops, as long as they run when I want and stop where I want

 

[bramling]

It can definitely be done. Three ways to do it:

1) take out the stops of the existing trains, causing those stations to lose frequency, and thereby losing a substantial proportion of the revenue in the floe

2) add some extra limited stop trains into the timetable. This will need extra infrastructure to allow the existing services to be overtaken without losing significant journey time, and also to provide for the extra trains. Particularly on the busier areas of the network, like the approaches to Birmingham, Birmingham itself, etc.

Personally I’m not at all convinced that either approach would be a good thing for the railway, or its passengers, as a whole.

I presume option three is to add the non-stop service, but with a massive amount of pathing allowance to fit round the rest of the timetable (essentially as has happened with Lumo)?

Whether people would value such an option is open to debate. It would fulful the OP's desire for having an undisturbed, if not quicker, journey. To be honest I'd probably be happy with that too if it provided extra capacity.

 

[Shrop]

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the number of passengers making long-distance journeys and what alternatives might be available.

The ideal is for a non-stop service to station E to leave station A, then shortly afterwards a stopping service calling at B, C and D, arriving at E just in time to give a good connection into the next fast. But there are all sorts of reasons that might not be practical or economic.

Most of that is a reason to get some management focus on the failings of the existing service, not to remove many of the intermediate stops. Fareham for example is a smaller station midway between Southampton and Portsmouth, but I think currently all passing passenger trains stop there. That might not be the case if your suggestion was adopted.

As the biggest place between Portsmouth and Southampton, Fareham is the one place that trains would continue to stop. What always seemed missing was the complete absence of any direct trains whatsoever, from Portsmouth to Reading. To have two population centres as big as these, only 55 miles apart but not to provide any through trains did seem odd. Especially when there were no connections en route either, and the hourly service from Basingstoke often left literally as the train from Reading (and Oxford, Birmingham etc) was just pulling in. Yes, I could list several failings of this, and many other routes and services, and I've written to TOCs to suggest improvements, but I've never been convinced that the admin staff answering the letters are actually interested, nor carry any influence.

 

[Starmill]

Very thin incremental gains are the absolute most you could hope for.

As it happens, this actually has been the reality of the past few years. For example, CrossCountry stopped serving Bromsgrove after the station was reconstructed and electrification was extended to permit a more frequent local service. This speeded up a small handful of services and generated a virtual capacity increase i.e. there was no longer a need to carry peak Bromsgrove - Birmingham traffic.

Ashchurch for Tewkesbury could also have its stops removed if GWR were able to run 1tph between Cheltenham Spa and Worcester, though that would probably meet with rather more resistance from the people using the current well-timed opportunities for Aschurch - Birmingham journeys than the people doing Bromsgrove - Cheltenham Spa / Gloucester / South Wales journeys.

Conversely, standardisation has been in favour where some trains skipped stops rather than making them. For example, on Sundays there used to be quite a number of CrossCountry services which passed Macclesfield and Stafford without stopping. No longer.

 

[edwin_m]

As the biggest place between Portsmouth and Southampton, Fareham is the one place that trains would continue to stop. What always seemed missing was the complete absence of any direct trains whatsoever, from Portsmouth to Reading. To have two population centres as big as these, only 55 miles apart but not to provide any through trains did seem odd. Especially when there were no connections en route either, and the hourly service from Basingstoke often left literally as the train from Reading (and Oxford, Birmingham etc) was just pulling in. Yes, I could list several failings of this, and many other routes and services, and I've written to TOCs to suggest improvements, but I've never been convinced that the admin staff answering the letters are actually interested, nor carry any influence.

Why does "being the largest place between X and Y" automatically mean that all trains between X and Y would stop there? According to your OP suggestion, that's exactly what wouldn't be happening.

 

[Shrop]

Why does "being the largest place between X and Y" automatically mean that all trains between X and Y would stop there? According to your OP suggestion, that's exactly what wouldn't be happening.

I think you may have misunderstood, I was suggesting limited stops, not no stops! And I was also talking about long distance trains, which this isn't. And there are already some limited stop services on this route. I'm more concerned about XC and other longer IC routes, where today there are NO trains that miss out any of the SIX stops that the faster trains used to miss.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

Given the responses which are all confirming capacity issues, is there not a case for some serious investment in more trainsets and track? If we're trying to encourage more sustainable travel, shouldn't we be focusing more on how to attract passengers out of cars and aeroplanes rather than simply looking at futile ways to squeeze ever more out of an already overcrowded rail network?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

For some years long distance trains have been timetabled to stop a lot more regularly than they used to. A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Some passengers like to be able to relax during their journey, but when there are no less than EIGHT stops during this journey of just three and a half hours, all of which involve a fair bit of passengers shuffling around, this is hardly conducive to relaxation. Defenders of rail operations will say that trains don’t lose much time having to stop due to wonderful acceleration these days, and they will also say that congestion on railways simply doesn’t allow for long distance faster services, but these arguments are never all that convincing.

The additional six stops in this example does actually cost the best part of half an hour, and when it suits rail operators such as when they want to justify not investing in more tracks, they can often find paths to overtake, and Bristol could provide one such opportunity.

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker? It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done! Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

I completely agree - even on commuter trains its a hassle with each stop jostling around as more people squeeze in through the doors. That's why I love the Windsor Lines so much that have a nice mix of fast and slow trains. The difference in ambience between the all stations Richmond to Clapham stopper and the non-stop train from Reading is really noticeable.

 

[JonathanH]

That's why I love the Windsor Lines so much that have a nice mix of fast and slow trains. The difference in ambience between the all stations Richmond to Clapham stopper and the non-stop train from Reading is really noticeable.

If you live in Wokingham then you only have a choice of a slow train. The Windsor Lines are very much an example of local connectivity taking precedence to limited stop trains as over time the long distance trains have gained a more standardised pattern and more stopping trains have been added.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

That is true - I suppose I'm spoiled being on the London end of the Windsor Lines, fast services for stations out to Berkshire is something that crops up on this forum from time to time but are completely unviable for various reasons.
There was a morning peak train before the pandemic which ran fast from Wokingham to Reading though.

 

[BayPaul]

Given the responses which are all confirming capacity issues, is there not a case for some serious investment in more trainsets and track? If we're trying to encourage more sustainable travel, shouldn't we be focusing more on how to attract passengers out of cars and aeroplanes rather than simply looking at futile ways to squeeze ever more out of an already overcrowded rail network?

Well there is that investment - HS2 is basically providing exactly that on the country's busiest mainline. In the west, if the Bristol - London superfasts ever start happening regularly then they will also basically be what you are talking about - brought about by the 4 tracking of Filton and investment in additional 80x trains. The issue with providing more services is that limited-stop trains need a lot of very expensive infrastructure for very limited capacity increase. A Plymouth - Exeter - Paddington service would need to overtake several other trains en-route, but the line is two-track from Reading - Plymouth. There are a couple of passing opportunities in stations, but has has been pointed out above, that would tend to delay the stopping service by around 5 minutes as it waits for the fast to overtake it. And then, when you get to Reading, the GWML is basically completely full into Paddington, and the station is full as well, so I would imagine that running additional services would either mean dropping something else, or 6-tracking from Paddington to airport junction, which would be a multi-billion pound project.

And all that for around a 10 minute difference on journey time, plus missing out on intermediate flows. Personally I'd much rather see a regular clockface fast service, calling at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Taunton and Reading, which is a good balance of connectivity and speed, and slow enough to be able to path other services around it.

 

[Starmill]

It would be more sensible as a long term objective to focus on 2tph running fast from Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads and beyond all day. This was on offer for much of the day before the pandemic and could be restored. It may well not be feasible for a few years however.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you may have misunderstood, I was suggesting limited stops, not no stops! And I was also talking about long distance trains, which this isn't. And there are already some limited stop services on this route. I'm more concerned about XC and other longer IC routes, where today there are NO trains that miss out any of the SIX stops that the faster trains used to miss.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

Given the responses which are all confirming capacity issues, is there not a case for some serious investment in more trainsets and track? If we're trying to encourage more sustainable travel, shouldn't we be focusing more on how to attract passengers out of cars and aeroplanes rather than simply looking at futile ways to squeeze ever more out of an already overcrowded rail network?

Of course we would all like a frequent service linking the stations we travel between, without making any other stops. But every stop is there for a reason, whether it's genuinely that there is enough customer demand to justify it, or that someone has decided that station needs to have a certain level of service and specified it in the franchise terms.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue the better option is higher performance trainsets to reduce the impact of stops on the timetable.

As for people complaining about passengers shifting around, that seems to be somewhat inherent to the idea of rail travel......

If every trainset had the performance of a Shinkansen set, things would be a lot easier to timetable and stopping services would be significantly faster - to the point I think many of the semi fast services could be dispensed with entirely.
(Basically imagine tube train levels of acceleration, but it just keeps going all the way to line speed)

 

[Mike Machin]

For some years long distance trains have been timetabled to stop a lot more regularly than they used to. A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Some passengers like to be able to relax during their journey, but when there are no less than EIGHT stops during this journey of just three and a half hours, all of which involve a fair bit of passengers shuffling around, this is hardly conducive to relaxation. Defenders of rail operations will say that trains don’t lose much time having to stop due to wonderful acceleration these days, and they will also say that congestion on railways simply doesn’t allow for long distance faster services, but these arguments are never all that convincing.

The additional six stops in this example does actually cost the best part of half an hour, and when it suits rail operators such as when they want to justify not investing in more tracks, they can often find paths to overtake, and Bristol could provide one such opportunity.

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker? It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done! Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

An extremely good idea, and in reality, a return to the ways the railways were run in the past. Long-distance trains should be much longer in formation, run less frequently, and make far fewer stops. The reduction in frequency would free-up paths for more medium and short-distance services long the same routes, serving stations missed by the faster limited-stop long-distance trains, but allowing passenger to connect in and out of the faster services en-route.

 

[Shrop]

Well there is that investment - HS2 is basically providing exactly that on the country's busiest mainline. In the west,

And all that for around a 10 minute difference on journey time, plus missing out on intermediate flows. Personally I'd much rather see a regular clockface fast service, calling at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Taunton and Reading, which is a good balance of connectivity and speed, and slow enough to be able to path other services around it.

Trouble is, what we then get, and what we indeed appear to be aspiring to, is a service which is a Jack of all trades, and Master of none.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On something like GWR, the Southern-like pattern of "fast to X then all stations to Y" seems to fit quite well, it also allows for more regional travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

An extremely good idea, and in reality, a return to the ways the railways were run in the past. Long-distance trains should be much longer in formation, run less frequently, and make far fewer stops. The reduction in frequency would free-up paths for more medium and short-distance services long the same routes, serving stations missed by the faster limited-stop long-distance trains, but allowing passenger to connect in and out of the faster services en-route.

A reduction in frequency below hourly would be an extremely negative move. I'm all for removing excessive frequencies, but hourly is about the minimum that is really useful. "Crack expresses" belong in the last century, an all day clockface service is better for modern needs and better competes with the car.