Trivia-Services that could be combined to make a new through service

[43055]

• Doncaster - Lincoln and Lincoln - Peterborough
• Crewe - Derby and Nottingham - Skegness

Doncaster to Peterborough already runs: timetable
Crewe to Derby was extended to Nottingham and Newark in May 21 replacing the Matlock service between Nottingham and Newark. timetable Maybe instead of Crewe the Skegness service goes to Matlock.

 

[TheBigD]

Doncaster to Peterborough already runs: timetable
Crewe to Derby was extended to Nottingham and Newark in May 21 replacing the Matlock service between Nottingham and Newark. timetable Maybe instead of Crewe the Skegness service goes to Matlock.

Was originally proposed for EMR to do Matlock-Nottingham-Norwich when the franchise was award. Was dropped due to performance concerns but then covid intervened and Matlock is now a shuttle to/from Derby, though it will run through to Nottingham again at some point.

On a related note has there been any official announcement/update recently about the Liverpool-Norwich being split at Nottingham, or when it will actually happen?

 

[class26]

Cross Tonbridge demand could be raised if the service went somewhere more useful than Redhill, but getting capacity to reverse for Gatwick isn't easy.

It's also not a 'through' service, there being the little matter of having to do the hokey kokey at Inverness as you can't go from one route to another with a simple reversal.

you could by using the rose st curve then reversing into the southern platforms unless others know different

 

[zwk500]

you could by using the rose st curve then reversing into the southern platforms unless others know different

Possible to do it, but requires heading in the wrong direction then reversing back to the station, in a similar way to the Newark NG calls in Nottingham-Lincoln services, so there's a faff and a half which really penalises through journeys.

 

[class26]

Possible to do it, but requires heading in the wrong direction then reversing back to the station, in a similar way to the Newark NG calls in Nottingham-Lincoln services, so there's a faff and a half which really penalises through journeys.

appreciate that but as the journey from Wick to Penzance is going to be fairly lengthy an extra few minutes for the reversal and general faff isn`t going to make that much difference overall.

 

[zwk500]

appreciate that but as the journey from Wick to Penzance is going to be fairly lengthy an extra few minutes for the reversal and general faff isn`t going to make that much difference overall.

Yes but nobody's going to be on from Wick to Penzance, given it's routed via York. Most passengers from Wick will have alighted at Inverness of Aberdeen, maybe a few will stay on for Edinburgh (if it's routed via the Tay Bridge) but it may be quicker to change for the Highland "Main" line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wonder if combining Leeds to Doncaster and Doncaster to Lincoln would actually be a better theoretical combination, leaving Peterborough to Lincoln as it is.

That would mean Leeds to Doncaster being a DMU under the wires, so not ideal. Better off extending the Leeds to Sheffield if you want a Leeds to Lincoln, which used to happen before Covid.

 

[JonathanH]

That would mean Leeds to Doncaster being a DMU under the wires, so not ideal. Better off extending the Leeds to Sheffield if you want a Leeds to Lincoln, which used to happen before Covid.

Indeed, but that is just an example of the issues of linking up services. A (not yet available) bi-mode unit could be used from Leeds to Lincoln via Doncaster if it was deemed worthwhile.

 

[A S Leib]

I wonder if combining Leeds to Doncaster and Doncaster to Lincoln would actually be a better theoretical combination, leaving Peterborough to Lincoln as it is.

Would it be possible to have a Lincoln - Doncaster - York service if the CrossCountry services via Doncaster stay at around three trains a day in each direction?

 

[Dai Corner]

Yes but nobody's going to be on from Wick to Penzance, given it's routed via York. Most passengers from Wick will have alighted at Inverness of Aberdeen, maybe a few will stay on for Edinburgh (if it's routed via the Tay Bridge) but it may be quicker to change for the Highland "Main" line.

I think there was a Kyle of Lochalsh - Aberdeen 'Parliamentary' train at one time, as a result of somebody kicking up a fuss over the withdrawal of passenger services over the Rose Street curve?

I did say in my original tongue in cheek post that Wick - Penzance would be fun, but not operationally or commercially viable.

 

[zwk500]

I think there was a Kyle of Lochalsh - Aberdeen 'Parliamentary' train at one time, as a result of somebody kicking up a fuss over the withdrawal of passenger services over the Rose Street curve?

I did say in my original tongue in cheek post that Wick - Penzance would be fun, but not operationally or commercially viable.

If they rostered the HST set for it, maybe! Don't know who'd want to spend that long on a Voyager though...

 

[Peter0124]

I suppose someone could run a charter from Wick to Penzance, wonder who would be up for that!

 

[zwk500]

I suppose someone could run a charter from Wick to Penzance, wonder who would be up for that!

I planned one that I think was London to Oban and back, over 2 or 3 days. That looked bad enough, even on a plush charter set! I'm fairly sure the Great Britain has done at least Inverness to Penzance at some point, not sure if they went all the way up the Far North line.

 

[Dai Corner]

If they rostered the HST set for it, maybe! Don't know who'd want to spend that long on a Voyager though...

I'd be up for it on an HST, preferably the 125 Group's preserved one with original engines and interior.

Perhaps we need to start a Fantasy Railtour thread?

 

[YorksLad12]

I'd connect Northern's Leeds-Castleford-Barnsley-Sheffield stopper with any EMR service to London. It would give new, through links from Castleford to London, restore the previous link from Barnsley, and is absolutely no worse than anyone else's idea

Would it be possible to have a Lincoln - Doncaster - York service if the CrossCountry services via Doncaster stay at around three trains a day in each direction?

A 'Cathedral Line' service? Works for me.

 

[Dai Corner]

A 'Catherdral Line' service? Works for me.

I think GWR have done that already Hereford-Worcester-Paddington?

 

[miklcct]

St Albans - Sutton (via Mitcham Junction) and Sutton - St Albans (via Wimbledon), and vice versa.

 

[Magdalia]

I suppose someone could run a charter from Wick to Penzance, wonder who would be up for that!

It has been done, by the Wirral Railway Circle on 24-27 May 1974. Details are on Six Bells Junction.

Six Bells Junction

Through the 1980s F&W (predecessors of Pathfinder) ran a number of weekend railtours from the West Country to Scotland called Skirl o'the Pipes.

About 30 years ago the NENTA summer weekend from East Anglia to Scotland was an annual fixture, doing Mallaig in 1990, Kyle in 1991 and Thurso in 1992.

Saturday night engineering work spreading like Japanese Knotweed put a stop to trains such as these.

A 'Cathedral Line' service? Works for me.

Go back in time and there were through trains between Norwich and Newcastle that passed by the cathedrals of Norwich, Ely, Lincoln, York and Durham. By the 1980s the train was still running on summer Saturdays, and, though it lost Lincoln, it gained Peterborough.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

St Albans - Sutton (via Mitcham Junction) and Sutton - St Albans (via Wimbledon), and vice versa.

Is this a joke post? If not, I'm confused...

 

[miklcct]

Is this a joke post? If not, I'm confused...

This is not a joke.

There is literally no reason why these trains should be separate services in the timetable rather than one through service. It just confuses passengers when they are told to change trains at Sutton.

 

[JohnRegular]

But going back 3 or 4 years there were definite proposals being made by local councils I think under the “trans-Wilts” banner to rationalise things and run a through service to Swindon via Melksham by joining it to the Romsey-Salisbury. I think the big question was whether to run the section north of Salisbury hourly or 2 hourly. Thats probably a proposal that triggered the service you were suggesting?

I beleive this is the aspiration; among other things TransWilts want to see some doubling of the Melksham line (I believe between thingley jn and Melksham station) to enable an hourly service.

Something you could plausibly do is have Swindon-Southampton, calling at all stations, and extend the planned new waterside line service from Hythe to Romsey/Salisbury the long way 'round via Eastleigh and Chandler's Ford. The former might allow Dilton Marsh to get an hourly service, removing the need for the Portsmouth-Cardiff to call there sporadically, whilst the latter could give Redbridge and Millbrook a more useful service, if it called there.

 

[zwk500]

Something you could plausibly do is ... extend the planned new waterside line service from Hythe to Romsey/Salisbury the long way 'round via Eastleigh and Chandler's Ford.

this isnt plausible. Its been looked into many, many times.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This is not a joke.

There is literally no reason why these trains should be separate services in the timetable rather than one through service. It just confuses passengers when they are told to change trains at Sutton.

That's a bit of a niche issue with services that loop. As a general rule, false destinations are used to prevent confusion which is fair enough, is that not the case with the Sutton Loop?

I can't imagine many people are making a journey where this would cause a problem. If journey planners can't handle looping services that's a problem with the journey planner, not with the service.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's a bit of a niche issue with services that loop. As a general rule, false destinations are used to prevent confusion which is fair enough, is that not the case with the Sutton Loop?

I can't imagine many people are making a journey where this would cause a problem. If journey planners can't handle looping services that's a problem with the journey planner, not with the service.

I suspect they’ve just carried on doing what has always been done. I also wonder if they didn’t have a clever enough PIS on 319s, but does the use of different train IDs either side of Sutton force the planners and platform information displays to treat them separately?

But on the other hand there are definitely examples of rounders using one train ID all the way out and back, eg SWR’s from and back to Waterloo.

 

[YorksLad12]

Go back in time and there were through trains between Norwich and Newcastle that passed by the cathedrals of Norwich, Ely, Lincoln, York and Durham. By the 1980s the train was still running on summer Saturdays, and, though it lost Lincoln, it gained Peterborough.

I shudder to think which operator would get lumbered with that these days. Sounds like a good touristy train route though. Anyone fancy setting up an Open Access Operator and bidding to run it?

 

[drb61]

Edinburgh - Glasgow (via Shotts) and Glasgow to Ayr, combined to offer a regular hourly through service from Edinburgh - Ayr. Would have to be operated by 380s or Ayr crews trained on 385s.

Similarly Glasgow - Edinburgh (via Shotts) and Edinburgh - North Berwick services.

When the Shotts route was wired, I had actually hoped the semi-fasts on the Shotts line would be spliced onto Glasgow - Ayr and Edinburgh - North Berwick services to offer relatively 'fast' Edinburgh - Ayr and Glasgow - North Berwick services, but this never happened (and most of the expresses on the Shotts line have been withdrawn post-Covid).

Indeed, the existing Ayr - Edinburgh / Glasgow - North Berwick (via Carstairs) services (of which there were a handful) have also since been decoupled.

 

[JonathanH]

Edinburgh - Glasgow (via Shotts) and Glasgow to Ayr, combined to offer a regular hourly through service from Edinburgh - Ayr. Would have to be operated by 380s or Ayr crews trained on 385s.

Similarly Glasgow - Edinburgh (via Shotts) and Edinburgh - North Berwick services.

I can't really get excited about through services which involve a reversal in a terminal station such as Ayr to Edinburgh via Glasgow Central, as you still end up with a long dwell at the station. It is also awkward to timetable.

On the other hand North Berwick to Glasgow Central via Edinburgh and Shotts does have its merits because it doesn't involve a reversal. The section of single track from Drem and the need to fit in with faster services between Edinburgh and Drem probably kills it off.

 

[Neptune]

That would mean Leeds to Doncaster being a DMU under the wires, so not ideal. Better off extending the Leeds to Sheffield if you want a Leeds to Lincoln, which used to happen before Covid.

Leeds - Lincoln services exist now. Unfortunately they aren’t semi fast between Sheffield and Lincoln at the moment.

 

[Magdalia]

There is literally no reason why these trains should be separate services in the timetable rather than one through service. It just confuses passengers when they are told to change trains at Sutton.

That's a bit of a niche issue with services that loop. As a general rule, false destinations are used to prevent confusion which is fair enough, is that not the case with the Sutton Loop?

I can't imagine many people are making a journey where this would cause a problem. If journey planners can't handle looping services that's a problem with the journey planner, not with the service.

I suspect they’ve just carried on doing what has always been done. I also wonder if they didn’t have a clever enough PIS on 319s, but does the use of different train IDs either side of Sutton force the planners and platform information displays to treat them separately?

But on the other hand there are definitely examples of rounders using one train ID all the way out and back, eg SWR’s from and back to Waterloo.

I do use the Sutton loop occasionally. Unfortunately I'm sufficiently familiar with how it works that I don't pay much attention to the passenger information provided. I suspect that most people going through Sutton, without getting on or off, are equally familiar. And for the people who don't know, all they do is get out of the train onto the platform at Sutton, then get back in again.

But I think there's two key differences between the Sutton loop on Thameslink and the Kingston/Hounslow loops on SWR. These are literally good reasons for the trains to change identity at Sutton.

One is that the trains go through the Thameslink core. Trains going through the core twice with the same identifier is a recipe for confusion that I'm glad isn't there. Another is that reversals at Sutton do happen in periods of disruption. In particular late running arrivals via Carshalton can reverse at Sutton, run non-stop Sutton-Streatham, and regain their booked path from Streatham.

 

[zwk500]

But I think there's two key differences between the Sutton loop on Thameslink and the Kingston/Hounslow loops on SWR. These are literally good reasons for the trains to change identity at Sutton.

For me the key difference between the Sutton Loop and the Waterloo or North Kent rounders is the length of the common section. For North Kent the common stations are only London Bridge and Cannon Street, for Waterloo its only Clapham Junction to Waterloo. Both are frequent enough turn up and go such that saturate information is not required, and both are only a short run to the terminal so any iffy data can't last too long.
By contrast the Sutton loop would be repeating its route from Streatham to Luton, giving plenty of chances for confusion.