Does the reduction of services to hourly in the evening really cause a problem?

[JonathanH]

Two threads are currently discussing the reduction in services to hourly beyond Bracknell on the Waterloo to Reading line. There are a number of other lines in the South East, eg Alton, East Grinstead, Aylesbury via Amersham where previously half hourly services have been reduced to hourly.

Other routes have never been more frequent than hourly.

This induces comments such as:

A bizarre time to reduce public transport supporting the night-time economy between both locations, especially as SWR has stated that off peak travel has returned to 100% of pre-Covid levels.

However, does an hourly late night really cause an issue? The headline last train is obviously critical, as that is the time by which people have to wrap up their evening activities. I guess there might be an issue around 'dead time' between an event finishing and the train time but that can be filled.

Surely most people just learn the times of the trains and adapt their plans accordingly. Then, so long as the train service is reliable and there is space for the passenger load, having an hourly service isn't a great hardship.

What point am I missing?

 

[gordonthemoron]

If a reasonable frequency isn’t maintained, people will drive

 

[JonathanH]

If a reasonable frequency isn’t maintained, people will drive

But they won't do that into London or if they are drinking.

 

[danielcanning]

But they won't do that into London or if they are drinking.

No, they just won't travel at all and stay local...

 

[JonathanH]

No, they just won't travel at all and stay local...

I don't see that. What is the psychological issue? Is it the hanging around after the event waiting for the train that is the issue?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is it the hanging around after the event waiting for the train that is the issue?

More likely it's the last train being cancelled and thus then getting stranded.

 

[JonathanH]

More likely it's the last train being cancelled and thus then getting stranded.

Yes, but that isn't an issue here. The last trains aren't changing. I could absolutely see that if the last train isn't late enough, that will put someone off.

Are you suggesting people will purposefully want to aim for the penultimate train, and if that is half an hour earlier, they won't travel, because they aren't prepared to rely on the last train?

 

[simonw]

I don't see that. What is the psychological issue? Is it the hanging around after the event waiting for the train that is the issue?

There is a thread on here about why passenger numbers have increased since privitisation.

One of the key drivers on many lines is the increase in frequency. A lot of people (most?) See the risk of missing a train and having to wait an hour too big a disincentive to use the train and will go elsewhere.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but that isn't an issue here. The last trains aren't changing. I could absolutely see that if the last train isn't late enough, that will put someone off.

Are you suggesting people will purposefully want to aim for the penultimate train, and if that is half an hour earlier, they won't travel, because they aren't prepared to rely on the last train?

If they miss the train they have to spend an hour sitting in the cold waiting for the next, if there even is one. This is not particularly attractive when they will just want to get home.

Frequency is king, it was demonstrated time and again throughout the BR era. It has continued to be demonstrated throughout the privatised era

 

[cle]

Not everyone drinks, or drinks a lot. This isn’t just about closing time, but shift workers, inc key workers, plus late workers and all types of entertainment.

The tube is certainly busier in the evenings than the late morning. We should encourage this economic activity, not dampen it with old fashioned timetabling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Things finish at random times. Waiting 29 minutes isn't a massive disaster - use the loo, get a coffee and get on nice and early for a seat (I deliberately did that this evening as I didn't fancy a full and standing train). 59 minutes is rather annoying.

 

[WAB]

The journey time includes waiting time. Two trains going to hourly from twice-hourly could increase the journey time by up to 90 minutes, and worsens the impact of cancellations as your next train is further away (an hour on the platform of Bradford Interchange was enough to make me reconsider my choices in life). Frequency brings the railway more in line with cars and modern lifestyles. Even half-hourly in cities is not really adequate.

 

[The Ham]

It very much depends.

First up when does the frequency drop? Is it at 7pm or 10pm? For example being half hourly until 9pm and then hourly until 11pm before one last train isn't such an issue as being half hourly to 7pm and then hourly until 9pm and then one last train.

What are the alternatives? For example for local travel are there buses which you could use between the rail services. For longer distance travel, what are you connecting to?

Why are people traveling? For shift work, yes you need a good frequency, however that's more likely to be local travel (hence the busyness of tube/overground trains in London), it's less likely to be something for travel between towns 20+ miles apart.

For leisure, then frequencies are less concerning, you make sure you check you phone for a train running in enough time to get to the station having said goodbye at a social event. Chances are there's a few also wishing to use the train, especially if there's alcohol consumed.

Alternatively, to give a personal example, if I'm off to visit family I don't really want to be on the last train but otherwise my time is of limited value to me (as long as I can access this website in generally happy), it's just making it there which is of key concern. If the train is late then my refund may have to cover a taxi, but otherwise it's no great hardship.

Generally the biggest issue, for me, is the lack of the last train (or the last train being too early).

 

[Arkeeos]

https://issuu.com/gcoffeng/docs/waaier-van-brogt Based on this document from the Netherlands (Not sure if there's one for the UK) here are their standard assumptions for ridership as correlating to frequency.

From 1/h to 2/h: +40%

From 2/h to 4/h: +25%

From 4/h to 8/h: +15%

 

[Magdalia]

I commuted to/from London for 25 years. During that time the provision of evening services changed from very poor to very good. Yes, it does make a difference.

I was a standard 9-5.30 office worker but needed a frequent evening service for 3 main reasons:

• having to work late, ending when the task was completed, self explanatory;
• going to the theatre or a concert, every line needs a decent service around 2200-2300 for people going home from such events;
• meeting friends after work who are dispersing to different parts of the South East at the end of the evening, if two people both have hourly services, but they don't match up, then one of them ends up with a long wait.

At the margin, lower evening frequencies will have an economic impact on the entertainment and hospitality industries, especially in Central London.

And in some social circumstances, "sorry I have to go I have a train to catch", can be either a blessing or a curse.

 

[43074]

I don't see that. What is the psychological issue? Is it the hanging around after the event waiting for the train that is the issue?

Pretty much, virtually all the research on passenger demand says waiting times are an important factor in people's decision (or not) to use public transport. As Bletchleyite pointed out it's the difference between a 29 minute wait and a 59 minute wait for the train home.

 

[miklcct]

A service with 15-minute headway is considered frequent enough for me to be in the core public transport network.

A service with 30-minute headway is still considered by me if it is a fast direct service.

An hourly service is basically out of consideration unless there are really no alternatives, and I'll be lucky if it turns up for me to board.

 

[NSE]

An hourly service is basically out of consideration unless there are really no alternatives, and I'll be lucky if it turns up for me to board.

Not sure I get this. From someone who uses trains in London and the South East to get around, if the only train is hourly, I adapt my plans to match that (I’m very appreciative of the fact in London it’s rare an area is completely hourly. Using Upper Warlingham as an example, I regularly socialise there. I won’t leave the pub or my mates flat until the train is due. If I’m turfed out in an emergency and the Upper Warlingham train is 59 minutes away, there’s always something coming from Whyteleafe, a bus to Purley, Croydon and Sutton (Sutton only relevant as my eventual destination is that way). I won’t have to wait for 59 minutes if I don’t want to). I don’t think the reduction in frequency puts people off. Not in their droves anyway. It’s annoying. Because it’s nice to have the flexibility. But I think the biggest killer is not being able to rely on the service running. If I’m in the pub at Upper Warlingham, I’m not bothered if there’s a two hour gap in service, as long it reflects the service offered in the timetable. If I know there’s a two hour gap then I’ll leave before it or drink safely in the knowledge I’ll catch the one after the gap in service. As long as I can plan and rely on that. I’m happy.

 

[zwk500]

A service with 15-minute headway is considered frequent enough for me to be in the core public transport network.

A service with 30-minute headway is still considered by me if it is a fast direct service.

An hourly service is basically out of consideration unless there are really no alternatives, and I'll be lucky if it turns up for me to board.

If we've told you once....

2tph with approximately 30-minute intervals is seen as a perfectly good service in the overwhelming majority of the country.
1tph is still seen by many as perfectly adequate so long as it turns up on time, even for late night services out of London.

 

[The Ham]

If we've told you once....

2tph with approximately 30-minute intervals is seen as a perfectly good service in the overwhelming majority of the country.
1tph is still seen by many as perfectly adequate so long as it turns up on time, even for late night services out of London.

It depends.

1tph is adequate of you don't need to change trains, if you do then there's a good chance that if both services are hourly you'll find that they don't connect well with each other (even if they are supposed to)

Arguably it would be better to have most lines which are 2tph or better, with them then connecting to a high frequency (but maximum length train) going to a major destination rather than lots of short trains going between multiple locations and that same major destination. As it reduces the risk of being delayed as you're only looking at the risk of an incident on 2 routes rather than 6.

To give a real work example, when Reading to Waterloo was 2tph and Ascot to Guildford was 2tph, would it have been better to run them as they were or run both connecting to Waterloo but only at 1tph because there's not the capacity for more services into London?

I get the impression that some services are 1tph because everywhere needs a direct connection to (name of city), rather than running a reasonable frequency and the delays because of missed connections are limited because there's a better frequency.

No one bats an eyelid at changing on the underground, as the delay from missing the perfect connection is so limited. Likewise few have an issue with changing at Reading to catch a train to Paddington, as there'll be another one soon and another soon after that and even the next isn't going to delay you by as much as 20 minutes.

 

[ChrisC]

It depends.

1tph is adequate of you don't need to change trains, if you do then there's a good chance that if both services are hourly you'll find that they don't connect well with each other (even if they are supposed to)

That’s the problem with hourly frequencies. It’s often ok if that’s the only leg of a journey you are taking. It’s when that hourly train is part of a longer journey and connections are not convenient that it puts people off travelling.

During the covid lockdowns EMR introduced what were supposed to be temporary timetables. The daytime frequency between Mansfield and Nottingham was cut from 2tph to just 1tph. That timetable still remains and I can’t see the previous 2tph timetable returning now. Disgraceful that a town the size of Mansfield now only has 1tph but that’s another story.

I used to use the train regularly as part of a longer journey but I no longer do so. The bus from the village where I live arrived at the station with a 10 minute wait for the train and now it is a 40 minute wait. When I arrived in Nottingham I used to have a 25 minute wait for my connection and now I have a 55 minute wait. The reduction in frequency has lengthened almost every journey I would make by at least 60 minutes. Now I remain on the bus all the way into Nottingham instead of changing to the local train service. It doesn’t shorten the journey back to previous timings but I much prefer to spend the hour sitting on a relatively warm bus than on a cold railway platform with no facilities.

 

[zwk500]

To give a real work example, when Reading to Waterloo was 2tph and Ascot to Guildford was 2tph, would it have been better to run them as they were or run both connecting to Waterloo but only at 1tph because there's not the capacity for more services into London?

To take this specific example, It would depend on the levels of intermediate traffic along the route. If there was a substantial backflow to Reading, then I'd say that route needs to stay 2tph.

I take the point regarding 1tph into 1tph, but would also contend that if traffic is low enough for 1tph on both routes then cross-journeys are going to be quite low as well. I'd also say that's if there is a substantial amount of traffic using a connection, then it should be timed properly.

 

[A0]

Two threads are currently discussing the reduction in services to hourly beyond Bracknell on the Waterloo to Reading line. There are a number of other lines in the South East, eg Alton, East Grinstead, Aylesbury via Amersham where previously half hourly services have been reduced to hourly.

I don't think the reduction of frequency to hourly in the late evening is a problem.

A far bigger problem is a change to stopping patterns and massively extended journey times - to give an example:

Northampton gets most services which cover the journey from Euston in about an hour until 21.50.

After that the services become pretty much 'all stops' after Watford Junc and take 90 minutes if not more. So if you've gone into London to see a show or similar, you're unlikely to be able to catch the 21.50, so you're then subject to a journey which is extended by 50% to get home, which isn't attractive.

 

[miklcct]

I don't think the reduction of frequency to hourly in the late evening is a problem.

A far bigger problem is a change to stopping patterns and massively extended journey times - to give an example:

Northampton gets most services which cover the journey from Euston in about an hour until 21.50.

After that the services become pretty much 'all stops' after Watford Junc and take 90 minutes if not more. So if you've gone into London to see a show or similar, you're unlikely to be able to catch the 21.50, so you're then subject to a journey which is extended by 50% to get home, which isn't attractive.

When there isn't enough demand to support both a stopper and an express at a frequent interval, there are 2 choices:
1. Run only the stopper at a frequent interval.
2. Run both at scarce intervals.

Both will put off passengers but in practice, option 2 will put off more passengers.

 

[JonathanH]

After that the services become pretty much 'all stops' after Watford Junc and take 90 minutes if not more. So if you've gone into London to see a show or similar, you're unlikely to be able to catch the 21.50, so you're then subject to a journey which is extended by 50% to get home, which isn't attractive.

Of course the challenge there is all about two track railway and how to give both local stations and those further afield a credible service. With freight trains running between the stoppers there isn't really a fast path to have. However, with the main depot being at Northampton, services which might otherwise terminate at Milton Keynes run through to Northampton for operational convenience so at least they run half hourly.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The service levels - stipulated by OPRAF for privatisation often specified hourly after 2100 on many routes. Making this half hourly was an easy win for many of the new and shiny franchise , at marginal cost and to some plaudits from user groups etc.

Now times are getting tighter , you can see why this may become more common. For my own views , it is the reliabilty of the last few trains that really matter.

 

[A0]

Of course the challenge there is all about two track railway and how to give both local stations and those further afield a credible service. With freight trains running between the stoppers there isn't really a fast path to have. However, with the main depot being at Northampton, services which might otherwise terminate at Milton Keynes run through to Northampton for operational convenience so at least they run half hourly.

I don't disagree, but it *could* be mitigated by running it so that Northampton passengers could use an Avanti to MK and then changing, but the connections are terrible.

 

[telstarbox]

I get late trains out of Charing Cross / Victoria about once a month, both weekdays and weekends, and they're always busy at half hourly frequencies for the mainlines (obviously some stations double up). Going down to hourly would risk leaving passengers behind.

 

[Jimini]

Of course the challenge there is all about two track railway and how to give both local stations and those further afield a credible service. With freight trains running between the stoppers there isn't really a fast path to have. However, with the main depot being at Northampton, services which might otherwise terminate at Milton Keynes run through to Northampton for operational convenience so at least they run half hourly.

Does the WCML south have to do this as a matter of routine, out of interest? I do find it odd (in my simple non-railway mind) that anything after that last fast train just before 2200 is so very disappointingly slow, even when on many occasions all four tracks are open and you end up sitting at MK for 30 mins and Rugby for over ten mins on AWC services.

Are there any similar setups on four track lines out of town (GWR out of Paddington springs to mind), or is it just an albatross around the necks of AWC / LNWR folk?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree, but it *could* be mitigated by running it so that Northampton passengers could use an Avanti to MK and then changing, but the connections are terrible.

No point, as after the 2200 the Avantis take an hour to MKC, stuck behind a stopper on the slows.