How would different country's planners run the UK rail network?

[Bartsimho]

So this is a thought experiment I just came up with but how would the railway planners of different countries run the UK rail network. This idea is mainly what do the planners of each country prioritise and how would they handle the information given. The idea is they have Full Track Layout Maps, Signalling System information, Electrification information, Gauge information (both track and loading gauge), Station Usage data in (both raw per station and journey pairs) and Population data. No information about current service patterns at all and how would they prioritise the services provided.

I'm thinking for French, Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian, American and Japanese planners and what they'd come up with.

Like does one set of planners focus on Intercity speeds, or does one set focus on connectivity, or does one give a huge prioritisation to either freight or passengers?

 

[SargeNpton]

You can knock the Americans out of the mix as their routes, outside of the east coast and west coast corridors, are largely long-distance freight hauls. They would have no experience of the complexities of mixing fast and slow passenger services in with freight flows.

As for the Europeans their services are probably not that much different to ours overall so, given a clean sheet, how would UK rail planners start from scratch?

 

[The exile]

So this is a thought experiment I just came up with but how would the railway planners of different countries run the UK rail network. This idea is mainly what do the planners of each country prioritise and how would they handle the information given. The idea is they have Full Track Layout Maps, Signalling System information, Electrification information, Gauge information (both track and loading gauge), Station Usage data in (both raw per station and journey pairs) and Population data. No information about current service patterns at all and how would they prioritise the services provided.

I'm thinking for French, Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian, American and Japanese planners and what they'd come up with.

Like does one set of planners focus on Intercity speeds, or does one set focus on connectivity, or does one give a huge prioritisation to either freight or passengers?

The French and Italians would, in the past at least, have left enormous gaps in their local timetables and gone for HS2, 3, 4, 5, 6.... Forget regular interval anywhere else. The Dutch would have given us even more regular-interval, standard pattern stopping services than we have. I suspect that the system closest to ours (of the European ones mentioned) is the Belgian one (at least as I knew it 15 - 20 years ago) - fairly standard, regular interval services overlaid with peak and other extras.

 

[The Planner]

Its not as simple as that, you need to at least know a train spec before you can even start. You would still look at it regionally focussing on the main lines as well due to the way the network is laid out.

 

[HSTEd]

Japan would, to some extent, metroise the railway.

The timetable would mostly be composed of high intensity services on fairly simple routings.

 

[zwk500]

There's a fundamental question here - do the other country's planners have to work within the same DfT/Treasury constraints as current? If so, there's not a lot they'd be able to change.

 

[Transilien]

France would run the railway be similar to the UK in which the capital and services going to the capital get the most investment however, there would be more electrification. Also there would be more heavy metro lines outside of London and Glasgow.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Somebody came up with a concept not too long ago of renaming large stations with an "interchange" prefix. So for instance Crewe would become "Crewe Interchange". I reckon that the Germans would designate certain stations interchange stations, knock them down and rebuild them into modern glass palaces.

 

[30907]

1. Germany would devolve regional services and tariffs, which would benefit most shorter journeys, but leave you with expensive flexible tickets across the boundaries (and what the press call the "fares jungle," a phrase which we haven't yet borrowed!).
2. Regional routes would be tendered to a tight specification, and the winning TOC wouldn't run anything beyond that and blame the region for overcrowding. They would pay less than DB and get away with it somehow. And wonder why there were staff shortages...
OTOH the major cultural events budget would allow an impressive special train service - yes, I've been to several Kirchentags (if not to Gelsenkirchen in the Euros!).

3. Unfortunately infrastructure issues would cause increasing problems, but there would be some HSLs, most of which were not intensively used.

4. Intercity services would be regular-interval(ish) and at one time would have been reliable (until #3 kicked in)


PS local stations would be prefixed by their local authority name, causing riots in Shipley, Bingley, Keighley and genteel protests in Ilkley - insincere apology for the stereotype - if you don't believe me, local Tories are campaigning for separation from Bradford Met, which they have somehow failed to achieve during any Conservative government.

 

[Sorcerer]

I've no doubt the Japanese planners would've managed to almost perfect the London and south east networks and would have a great emphasis on metro style services in that area similar to how they have so many trains running around Tokyo even when under different operators. Now in Japan they mostly built their Shinkansen network grade-separated due to running on standard gauge rather than the narrower gauge on the conventional Japanese network, but I'm not sure if they would've replicated that in the UK if they built HS2 since the track gauge is the same as the conventional network. Interestingly the use of Up/Down for directional travel is used in Japan just like it is here.

 

[Matt P]

To answer this question we'd also need to consider some quite radical changes to how the UK is governed. Despite devolution to Scotland and Wales as well as some more piecemeal devolution deals to some local authorities in England, the UK is still a highly centralised state in comparison to many other western countries, particularly European countries. All larger EU countries (France, Spain, Italy, Poland) have some form of regional government, with Germany of course having federal states. These have far more responsibilities for transport than most parts of the UK, being directly involved in rail service provision.

Below states, units of local government in the EU tend to be smaller both in terms of geography and population than the UK, where the direction of travel has been towards large unitary authorities. However, the various district , provincial and municipal government have a lot more responsibility for local transport (bus, light rail etc) than pretty much anywhere in the UK . Largely because central governments in other countries have resisted the urge to effect apply a one size fits all approach by national legislation (1985 Transport Act, for example, ironically simultaneously an act of deregulation, privatisation and nationalisation all in one).

Devolution to Scotland and Wales has essentially just created a pair of mini-Westminsters, with power not being devolved downwards from Edinburgh or Cardiff. In Germany it is probable the likes of the South Wales Metro would be led by a consortium of local authorities via a transport association rather than a state government.

So as a starter for 10, if we were handing over planning to individuals from elsewhere, I think the concept of regional autonomy within England would be revisited, with significant responsibility in key areas such as local and regional transport removed entirely from the UK government. It is also likely the 1985 Transport Act would be repealed so as to enable local authorities either individually of via joint transport authorities, to plan bus networks, either by operating them directly or (as is common in Scandinavia) tenders/franchising. From a rail perspective, regional authorities would be specifying and funding local and regional rail. The operators would either be a national publicly owned operator, a regional publicly owned operator or a privately owned but contracted by the region.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

To answer this question we'd also need to consider some quite radical changes to how the UK is governed. Despite devolution to Scotland and Wales as well as some more piecemeal devolution deals to some local authorities in England, the UK is still a highly centralised state in comparison to many other western countries, particularly European countries. All larger EU countries (France, Spain, Italy, Poland) have some form of regional government, with Germany of course having federal states. These have far more responsibilities for transport than most parts of the UK, being directly involved in rail service provision.

Below states, units of local government in the EU tend to be smaller both in terms of geography and population than the UK, where the direction of travel has been towards large unitary authorities. However, the various district , provincial and municipal government have a lot more responsibility for local transport (bus, light rail etc) than pretty much anywhere in the UK . Largely because central government resisted the urge to effect apply a one size fits all approach by national legislation (1985 Transport Act, for example, ironically simultaneously an act of deregulation, privatisation and nationalisation all in one).

Devolution to Scotland and Wales has essentially just created a pair of mini-Westminsters, with power not being devolved downwards from Edinburgh or Cardiff. In Germany it is probable the likes of the South Wales Metro would be led by a consortium of local authorities via a transport association rather than a state government.

So as a starter for 10, if we were handing over planning to individuals from elsewhere, I think the concept of regional autonomy within England would be revisited, with significant responsibility in key areas such as local and regional transport removed entirely from the UK government. It is also likely the 1985 Transport Act repealed so as to enable local authorities either individually of via joint transport authorities, to plan bus networks, either by operating directly of (as is common in Scandinavia) tenders/franchising. From a rail perspective, regional authorities would be specificity and funding local and regional rail. The operators would either be a national publicly owned operator, a regional publicly owned operator or a privately owned but contracted by the region.

Interesting response. What did the 1985 transport act do?

 

[eldomtom2]

Japan would, to some extent, metroise the railway.

The timetable would mostly be composed of high intensity services on fairly simple routings.

I'm not sure Japanese railways can really be described as "metroised", or that they comprise of services on "fairly simple routings". Rather they would seem to me to be in many cases the opposite - irregularly spaced (but frequent in urban areas) trains on a wide variety of stopping patterns.

Interestingly the use of Up/Down for directional travel is used in Japan just like it is here.

British engineers built the first Japanese railways, and the British influence is still heavily present in things like signalling.

 

[Matt P]

Interesting response. What did the 1985 transport act do?

Bus deregulation outside of London.

 

[renegademaster]

Germany of course having federal states

Germany off course being much bigger in land area than the UK. England is about 2 Bayerns(the largest state) in area, Scotland being about the same size and Wales being smaller. England, Wales and Scotland each being their own Lander would roughly be equivalent to Germany. England has a very dense population where drawing arbitrary lines through would not make much sense. Netherlands is probably the most comparable in terms of urban geography and they don't shove everything off to regional government like Germany does.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with devolution in transport policy is it can create all sorts of decidedly suboptimal edge effects.

For example, proposals to convert the Marple trains in Manchester into trams often have the trams stop at Marple. Which, if done, would create a very annoying and almost useless rural branchline from Marple to New Mills Central that will have to be served. It might not be in Manchester's interest to just run the trams to New Mills but it would be decidedly in the interests of society in general.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2024 ==

I'm not sure Japanese railways can really be described as "metroised", or that they comprise of services on "fairly simple routings". Rather they would seem to me to be in many cases the opposite - irregularly spaced (but frequent in urban areas) trains on a wide variety of stopping patterns.

My understanding is Japanese systems are characterised by self contained groups of platforms for service groups, without the sort of complex station throats we might see in the UK.

This is more or less what I meant, if you look at Tokyo station you can see it is not one station but several in parallel.

Service groups will have dedicated tracks with limited cross pollination between them.
Sure, service groups will still have variations in stopping pattern, but still simpler than we see in the UK.

 

[eldomtom2]

My understanding is Japanese systems are characterised by self contained groups of platforms for service groups, without the sort of complex station throats we might see in the UK.

This is more or less what I meant, if you look at Tokyo station you can see it is not one station but several in parallel.

I don't think such simplicity around station throats etc. really counts as "metroisation".

 

[zwk500]

I don't think such simplicity around station throats etc. really counts as "metroisation".

segregation of traffic flows absolutely is part of (but only part of) metroisation.

 

[Sorcerer]

Is traffic segregation not already a bit of a thing here in the UK? I know it's not quite to the same level as Japan, but I find at stations like Liverpool Lime Street the platforms generally are served by certain routes. Trains travelling along the Chat Moss line tend to be routed into platforms 1-5 while platforms 6-10 run to Liverpool South Parkway and along either the Warrington route or West Coast Main Line. Or have I totally misunderstood things?

 

[zwk500]

Is traffic segregation not already a bit of a thing here in the UK? I know it's not quite to the same level as Japan, but I find at stations like Liverpool Lime Street the platforms generally are served by certain routes. Trains travelling along the Chat Moss line tend to be routed into platforms 1-5 while platforms 6-10 run to Liverpool South Parkway and along either the Warrington route or West Coast Main Line. Or have I totally misunderstood things?

Liverpool is perhaps a bad example as the middle can be shared between destinations.

London Bridge is a much clearer example of traffic separation, with 1-3 being Cannon St - North kent, 4/5 is Thameslink, 6-9 is Charing Cross - wider kent, and then 10-15 for Sussex.

 

[Sorcerer]

Liverpool is perhaps a bad example as the middle can be shared between destinations.

London Bridge is a much clearer example of traffic separation, with 1-3 being Cannon St - North kent, 4/5 is Thameslink, 6-9 is Charing Cross - wider kent, and then 10-15 for Sussex.

Thank you, that's a much better example given that, much like Tokyo, it's a through station (partially) running through the capital on some of the busiest lines. Considerably more comparable. Matter of fact I wonder how many UK rail stations would be through stations if we took an approach similar to Japanese planners. Truth be told though, I doubt even they could have gotten Farringdon Grand Central built with property prices in London combined with so many other reasons.

 

[Bevan Price]

France would be mainly concentrate on trunk routes to/from London. Big city suburban services would continue largely unchanged. Many rural routes would decline, often replaced by infrequent buses. On some routes there might be long gaps between morning and afternoon peak hours, allowing 4-5 hours for daytime infrastructure maintenance (so less need for expensive "overtime rates pay" at weekends. )

Switzerland would follow their own example - maybe slower on some long distance routes, but with (almost) guaranteed connections at intermediate junctions.

Germany would probably outsource control of local services to "city regions" (or equivalent), with service fragmentation just as bad as the UK franchise system was.

 

[eldomtom2]

segregation of traffic flows absolutely is part of (but only part of) metroisation.

Well exactly, my point was that traffic segregation is not enough to "metroise" a network.

Thank you, that's a much better example given that, much like Tokyo, it's a through station (partially) running through the capital on some of the busiest lines. Considerably more comparable. Matter of fact I wonder how many UK rail stations would be through stations if we took an approach similar to Japanese planners. Truth be told though, I doubt even they could have gotten Farringdon Grand Central built with property prices in London combined with so many other reasons.

Honestly I don't think there'd be that much difference - if you take London, build HS2 in full and put all long-distance services onto it, give the sub-surface lines to National Rail, and build about five more Elizabeth Lines you've pretty much got Tokyo - there's a lot of services that terminate at city-centre terminals, including all the Shinkansen services (which are the only way to get more than about 100 miles out of the city without changing trains).

 

[Bartsimho]

Liverpool is perhaps a bad example as the middle can be shared between destinations.

London Bridge is a much clearer example of traffic separation, with 1-3 being Cannon St - North kent, 4/5 is Thameslink, 6-9 is Charing Cross - wider kent, and then 10-15 for Sussex.

Surely the best example of this segregation is Clapham Junction?
1 is a London facing bay (mainly WLL)
2-6 is Waterloo-Reading Line
7-11 is South Western Mainline
12-15 is Brighton Mainline
16-17 is WLL-BML

 

[zwk500]

Surely the best example of this segregation is Clapham Junction?
1 is a London facing bay (mainly WLL)
2-6 is Waterloo-Reading Line
7-11 is South Western Mainline
12-15 is Brighton Mainline
16-17 is WLL-BML

Clapham junction is close but not quite as well separated as London Bridge, IMO. 2 is also a London-facing bay primarily for the SLL/ELL trains via Whitechapel. It's not connected to the Windsor Lines.
The Brighton and 'Main' sides of CLJ are well separated (if 16/17 muddy the waters by being used for WLL turnback sometimes), but the Windsor lines aren't as strictly segregated. You have only 3 tracks into Waterloo, and it's paired by direction without a flyover so has conflicts at Barnes, and fast trains sometimes using the 'Slow' line because of the junction configuration at barnes. Clapham Junction also carries freight traffic mixed in on the Brighton and Windsor Slows.

London Bridge is more strictly segregated for each distinct traffic group, and this applies over the wider area, with the Bricklayers Arms flyover.

 

[Matt P]

Germany off course being much bigger in land area than the UK. England is about 2 Bayerns(the largest state) in area, Scotland being about the same size and Wales being smaller. England, Wales and Scotland each being their own Lander would roughly be equivalent to Germany. England has a very dense population where drawing arbitrary lines through would not make much sense. Netherlands is probably the most comparable in terms of urban geography and they don't shove everything off to regional government like Germany does.

Netherlands is the size of a German state both geographically and population so isn't that comparable to England but instead a German state.

If the average population of German states is a little over 5.2 million and the average size of around 22,000 sq kilometres. So if England were divided in a similar manner, there would be 10 of 11 regions using the same average population or 6 by average surface area.

There are 9 officially recognised regions of England, with sizes comparable to German states, with the exception perhaps of Bavaria and NRW. Although they are comparatively modern creations, this could also be said about quite a number of German states which were created in 1949 or 1990, in most cases being amalgamations of Prussian provinces. Moreover the boundaries of some states are no less arbitrary than English regions, particularly as several German metropolitan areas straddle the boundaries of some state boundaries. Hamburg's being probably one of the more extreme examples. With the exception of London's metropolitan area which arguably extends well into the South East and East of England, the other metropolitan areas of England are relatively well contained within a single region.

The idea of England, in government terms, being equilant to a Lander is fundamentally flawed. England accounts for 80% of the UK's population. Such an unequal federation is bound to fail. Even Prussia only accounted for about 60% of the Wiemar republic's population, although I accept that other factors led to its failure.

However, devolution to England rather than within it would also fail in terms of any concept subsidiarity, devolution or local accountability. The lack of these is one of the major flaws in the UK's constitution. Greater regional and also local autonomy would allow for transport (and other policy area) solutions better suited to different areas of the country, rather than a Westminster knows best approach.

 

[renegademaster]

the other metropolitan areas of England are relatively well contained within a single region.

Not really, the line between East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber runs through a quite urbanised area, the same with East and West Midlands. While the boundaries are better defined , splitting up North West and North East again would undo a lot of the operational improvements that northern had made and I don't think many people are begging for the split to be reimposed.