Do direct London services actually matter?

[najaB]

And when Avanti divert, there's room for those diversions too.

There's a difference between finding a path for a day/few days (where you can run in an unused path or cancel something else) and making a permanent slot in the timetable.

 

[Howardh]

There's a difference between finding a path for a day/few days (where you can run in an unused path or cancel something else) and making a permanent slot in the timetable.

Like I said, will the new configuration add more "slots"? If not, then what's the point? If so, then can we have a direct service, even if it's only one or two per day?

 

[najaB]

Like I said, will the new configuration add more "slots"? If not, then what's the point? If so, then can we have a direct service, even if it's only one or two per day?

It's supposed to allow two more trains per hour so yes, I would expect that it would be possible to add services that call at both Bolton and London.

If that is the best use of the additional capacity is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[The Planner]

It's a speculation thread! Yes they could, finding space and stock is another matter! But if Transpennine Express can run through trains from the Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh via Bolton, then it's a question as to why not London? And when Avanti divert, there's room for those diversions too. As for removing trains, the new configuration in the next few years at Oxford Road should allow more to pass through - if not then isn't that a total waste of time and money?

I suppose I should just be grateful we can get to the airport direct.

No one is going to accept dumping an 11 car Pendo out on 13/14 at Picc for a Bolton extension.

 

[Howardh]

No one is going to accept dumping an 11 car Pendo out on 13/14 at Picc for a Bolton extension.

Nine car??!

Be nice, speculatively, if "we'll make it work" trumped "it can't be done"! I just wonder if that Ordsall Chord hadn't been built whether Bolton/Chorley would have a far better service through to Piccadilly and all points south, as there would be more space on that darned corridor?

 

[The Planner]

Nine car??!

Be nice, speculatively, if "we'll make it work" trumped "it can't be done"! I just wonder if that Ordsall Chord hadn't been built whether Bolton/Chorley would have a far better service through to Piccadilly and all points south, as there would be more space on that darned corridor?

Not even a 9 car. Ordsall sends 1tph to/from Castlefield. If that was removed the gap would put you behind the Blackpool North train which has called at Bolton. The other way creates a gap that is infront of the train back to Blackpool.

 

[redreni]

A lot of people I know get very stressed about connections.

Personally, the number of connections is of very little concern to me when I plan a journey, but then again I do travel a lot in the South East where the impact of missing a connection tends to be less pronounced than it might be in much of the rest of the country as the frequencies are better.

On a recent trip from London to Hartlepool, for example, I eschewed the direct Grand Central option for a journey with changes at York and Thornaby. A 10 minute delay on the York to Thornaby leg saw the Middlesborough to Hexham train pull out of Thornaby station just as we were pulling in, putting me an hour behind schedule. 100% delay repay goes some way towards making up for this, however!

Being stuck in Thornaby for 50 minutes was instructive, however. Walking around in the vicinity of the station, it was noticeable that the only businesses seem to be car-related, and the whole area appears to have been designed exclusively for cars. And why wouldn't everybody drive everywhere, if the slightest delay to a train will break a timetabled connection and cause what should be a 20 minute local journey to take 80 minutes? While 100% delay repay for an hour's delay on an expensive journey from London that should take 4 hours may seem fair enough, getting a few quid back on a local fare in return for the journey taking four times as long as it should isn't going to be much consolation, is it? If connections aren't reliable and services are only hourly or worse, then in the absence of a direct service it's just not going to be practical to commute between two stations.

 

[TheGrew]

I think part of the connection problem is our fragmented operator and ticketing systems. I live in Newton-le-Willows and fairly regularly travel to London for work. This usually involves a change at Warrington Bank Quay (I have also used Manchester previously in disruption and could feasibly use Liverpool too). Because of the way ticketing is, I nearly always book advance fares on the Warrington<->Euston legs and buy a separate ticket for the Newton-le-Willows<->Warrington leg as this is more cost-effective. This ticket 'split' does mean I lose the ability to claim for missed connections which becomes a problem northbound, especially with Avanti's questionable punctuality. I have often arrived a few minutes after my connecting train has left faced with either waiting nearly an hour for the next one or hopping in a cab for the 15-minute journey home. Southbound I tend to give myself far more time to change than the journey planner does as it is also not unheard of for the Newton->Warrington services to be late or canceled as well.
Interestingly the Lumo open access Rochdale->Euston proposal does include a stop at Newton-le-Willows giving a direct service and I think it would be fairly well patroned.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think part of the connection problem is our fragmented operator and ticketing systems. I live in Newton-le-Willows and fairly regularly travel to London for work. This usually involves a change at Warrington Bank Quay (I have also used Manchester previously in disruption and could feasibly use Liverpool too). Because of the way ticketing is, I nearly always book advance fares on the Warrington<->Euston legs and buy a separate ticket for the Newton-le-Willows<->Warrington leg as this is more cost-effective. This ticket 'split' does mean I lose the ability to claim for missed connections which becomes a problem northbound, especially with Avanti's questionable punctuality. I have often arrived a few minutes after my connecting train has left faced with either waiting nearly an hour for the next one or hopping in a cab for the 15-minute journey home. Southbound I tend to give myself far more time to change than the journey planner does as it is also not unheard of for the Newton->Warrington services to be late or canceled as well.
Interestingly the Lumo open access Rochdale->Euston proposal does include a stop at Newton-le-Willows giving a direct service and I think it would be fairly well patroned.

Split tickets, as you describe, are eligible for delay repay due to missed connections from the operator that caused the delay

 

[redreni]

It is also no coincidence, in my opinion, that a town like Hartlepool gets a direct service to London but not to places like Darlington or Leeds. It wouldn't even get a direct service to York if the direct London service didn't happen to call there. If Parliament were in Leeds, I'm sure this might be different.

People don't like changing trains and demand direct services, but if that were the only factor at play here, towns that are nowhere near London would get direct services to large and proximate cities first. The demand for direct services specifically to London comes from MPs, and maybe from prominent local business people who maintain personal and business contacts in London.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could they?

Which existing services through Castlefield would you remove to enable this, and where would you get the Rolling stock from?

It's a speculation thread! Yes they could, finding space and stock is another matter! But if Transpennine Express can run through trains from the Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh via Bolton, then it's a question as to why not London? And when Avanti divert, there's room for those diversions too. As for removing trains, the new configuration in the next few years at Oxford Road should allow more to pass through - if not then isn't that a total waste of time and money?

I suppose I should just be grateful we can get to the airport direct.

In the spirit of speculation:
Assuming rolling stock diagrams could be shuffled to accommodate, to allow a London to Manchester service (once or twice a day per direction, I'd look at if there's an arrival from Euston which coincides with a semi-fast service through Castlefield (likely from the Airport)- preferably through to Preston or Blackpool as those will be electric. The London service could then run in the path of the Blackpool (some stops may need to be omitted) to serve Bolton (and any other stations which could accommodate a 9-car Pendolino, if any) Preston, and Blackpool. An additional service to Blackpool (assuming an existing service isn't lost in the shuffle) is an added bonus- there's political mileage to be gained from improving links to struggling areas.

The EMU which would have formed the Blackpool service could then run behind the Pendolino (possibly the skipped stops could create an additional path behind- though it would be running on yellows at least initially) to pick up the skipped stops.

 

[stevieinselby]

A lot of people I know get very stressed about connections.

Personally, the number of connections is of very little concern to me when I plan a journey, but then again I do travel a lot in the South East where the impact of missing a connection tends to be less pronounced than it might be in much of the rest of the country as the frequencies are better.

The risk of missing a connection because your first train is delayed is a big factor. Round here, few trains run better than hourly and some are not even that (especially if you are travelling to a smaller station), so missing a connection can mean a long wait, potentially at a station without a lot of facilities, and a long delay in getting where you are going. Which if you are heading home, or going somewhere for an unspecified time, can be annoying, but if you need to be somewhere at a particular time it can be a lot worse than a wasted hour.

There's also extra hassle, especially if you are travelling with children and/or luggage, and if trains are busy then finding a seat and/or luggage space in each train can be an issue that people want to minimise, and people can be worried about getting lost at large stations and getting on the wrong train or not being able to find the right platform – for people who are infrequent travellers or who maybe have lower mobility those can be more serious problems.

 

[Palmerston]

Looking at the position for Bolton, this is a larger town than Wigan or Warrington, but total journeys to Euston are 17,000 p.a. from Bolton vs about 110,000 from the other two. On the other side of the country, Darlington is also smaller and has 200,000 journeys a year to King's Cross.

The statistics won't be directly comparable but the discrepancy is sufficiently high to suggest to me that direct services do make a difference.

 

[The Ham]

The risk of missing a connection because your first train is delayed is a big factor. Round here, few trains run better than hourly and some are not even that (especially if you are travelling to a smaller station), so missing a connection can mean a long wait, potentially at a station without a lot of facilities, and a long delay in getting where you are going. Which if you are heading home, or going somewhere for an unspecified time, can be annoying, but if you need to be somewhere at a particular time it can be a lot worse than a wasted hour.

There's also extra hassle, especially if you are travelling with children and/or luggage, and if trains are busy then finding a seat and/or luggage space in each train can be an issue that people want to minimise, and people can be worried about getting lost at large stations and getting on the wrong train or not being able to find the right platform – for people who are infrequent travellers or who maybe have lower mobility those can be more serious problems.

Which is why increasing frequencies should be a priority.

As I've said before, no one thinks twice about changing trains on the tube as the frequencies are so high.

Clearly that's not possible, but even twice an hour (ideally 3tph) means that people wouldn't be so bothered about getting the train before and waiting 30 minutes (20 minutes if 3tph), something which just isn't at all reasonable for an hourly service (note I know it's still a barrier, just not as significant).

 

[najaB]

As I've said before, no one thinks twice about changing trains on the tube as the frequencies are so high.

So, instead of (made up numbers) one train per hour with 200 people running at a loss of £3K per train you have three trains carrying 66 each making a loss of £4K each.

 

[redreni]

So, instead of (made up numbers) one train per hour with 200 people running at a loss of £3K per train you have three trains carrying 66 each making a loss of £4K each.

If we're making up numbers, why not assume if the service were frequent enough to be usable, more people would use it?

 

[najaB]

If we're making up numbers, why not assume if the service were frequent enough to be usable, more people would use it?

Yes, of course there's an always a certain amount of supply induced demand but that only goes so far. I doubt there are many places in the UK where there's enough supressed demand to go from an hourly service that isn't full to a 3tph service that is.

 

[The Ham]

So, instead of (made up numbers) one train per hour with 200 people running at a loss of £3K per train you have three trains carrying 66 each making a loss of £4K each.

I did say 2tph, with 3tph being "ideally", i.e. only 3tph if it was suitable.

However, on the above you've assumed that there would be no extra people using a service which runs more frequently.

To give a real world example (it's for a bus, but illustrates the point) I had the option of getting a bus to work, the frequency of 1bph, as it didn't run at the times I would have liked it to (for example running 5 minutes before I finished work, with the next bus an hour later) I opted to cycle. If it had been 2bph, chances are I'd have used it (especially during the winter).

Hourly frequencies aren't all that useful, and whilst increasing to 2tph isn't going to double useage, it's likely to provide a significant uplift.

Anyway, a lot of the costs (I know some will) of a railway line (infrastructure) aren't going to double because the frequency of trains using the line doubles.

For example, the cost of the monitoring of the lines (for example visual inspections) isn't going to change that much. Nor is the cost of the signaler.

 

[najaB]

Anyway, a lot of the costs (I know some will) of a railway line (infrastructure) aren't going to double because the frequency of trains using the line doubles.

For example, the cost of the monitoring of the lines (for example visual inspections) isn't going to change that much. Nor is the cost of the signaler.

No. But the direct cost to the TOC of operating two services is going to be at least twice that of one service. Likely more if the increased service means that additional units are required due to lack of turnaround time.

 

[stevieinselby]

No. But the direct cost to the TOC of operating two services is going to be at least twice that of one service. Likely more if the increased service means that additional units are required due to lack of turnaround time.

It is very unlikely that doubling the frequency will cost more than double to run in terms of operational costs (although when you reach the limits of current infrastructure, there may well be increased costs to go further). If you currently need 4 trains to operate a service at 1tph then you will not need more than 8 trains to operate it at 2tph, and there are likely to be some routes where you would not even need as many as double, if you were able to reduce dead time at the terminus.
(This might not always be true if you are increasing by a non-integer factor, eg from 2tph to 3tph then there could be circumstances where you would end up with less efficient use of vehicles, but this shouldn't ever happen when doubling, trebling etc.)

 

[najaB]

It is very unlikely that doubling the frequency will cost more than double to run in terms of operational costs (although when you reach the limits of current infrastructure, there may well be increased costs to go further). If you currently need 4 trains to operate a service at 1tph then you will not need more than 8 trains to operate it at 2tph, and there are likely to be some routes where you would not even need as many as double, if you were able to reduce dead time at the terminus.

It's entirely possible for costs to more than double. In most cases train diagrams aren't a simple back and forth shuttle so it's not as simple as "four trains become eight", but rather they interact so 'stealing' a train to strengthen one service either means someone else loses out or more trains and drivers are needed - so four is more likely to become nine or ten. That's not to mention that staffing costs may more than double due to rest requirements.

 

[30907]

It's entirely possible for costs to more than double. In most cases train diagrams aren't a simple back and forth shuttle so it's not as simple as "four trains become eight", but rather they interact so 'stealing' a train to strengthen one service either means someone else loses out or more trains and drivers are needed - so four is more likely to become nine or ten. That's not to mention that staffing costs may more than double due to rest requirements.

That's possible but relatively unlikely.
An example of interworking that comes to mind is Preston-Ormskirk where originally the increase to hourly (+/- 50%) was covered by "borrowing" from Blackpool-Colne (no extra unit, possible additional staff, definite track access charges and fuel/maintenance); however that was then altered to add an extra unit into the cycle (additional leasing cost only).
So a starting assumption is that an X% increase in service will cost the TOC in the region of X% more, depending on the level of efficiencies obtained.

 

[The exile]

So, instead of (made up numbers) one train per hour with 200 people running at a loss of £3K per train you have three trains carrying 66 each making a loss of £4K each.

Renember Operation Princess where no one seemed to have thought that running half-length trains twice as often would soon result in horrendous overcrowding?

 

[najaB]

That's possible but relatively unlikely.

That depends entirely on if the TOC is [scheduling to maximise resource utilisation][sweating the assets]* or not, but I'd be amazed if doubling or tripling service provision isn't going to increase costs by *at least* two or three times and result in a loss at least in the short/medium term.

*(delete as appropriate)

 

[stevieinselby]

It's entirely possible for costs to more than double. In most cases train diagrams aren't a simple back and forth shuttle so it's not as simple as "four trains become eight", but rather they interact so 'stealing' a train to strengthen one service either means someone else loses out or more trains and drivers are needed - so four is more likely to become nine or ten. That's not to mention that staffing costs may more than double due to rest requirements.

Your maths doesn't math.
You would have to have a very complex arrangement of workings, and selectively upgrade only some of the frequencies, for that to happen, and the chances that across the network you wouldn't be able to rejig things to make the service more efficient rather than less is bonkers, you would have to set out to deliberately make things worse for that to happen.
On a great many lines, trains do just work backwards and forwards.
To take a couple of examples near me:
Bradford to Huddersfield uses 2 trains to run an hourly service: it's 35 minutes end-to-end so trains spend 25 minutes laying over at each end. You could run a half-hourly service with 3 trains.
York to Bridlington uses 5 trains to run an hourly service: it's a shade over 2 hours end-to-end so trains lay over in York for 45 minutes. You could run a half-hourly service with 9 trains.
Drivers don't need more rest just because there are more drivers.

 

[najaB]

You would have to have a very complex arrangement of workings, and selectively upgrade only some of the frequencies, for that to happen, and the chances that across the network you wouldn't be able to rejig things to make the service more efficient rather than less is bonkers

Welcome to TOCs that barely have enough trains to provide the service that they do while being able to cover maintenance requirements. Do you think that most TOCs aren't already operating as efficiently as they can?

At most TOCs, having more than one or two units out of service unexpectedly results in short-forms or cancelled services across their network.

 

[stevieinselby]

Welcome to TOCs that barely have enough trains to provide the service that they do while being able to cover maintenance requirements. Do you think that most TOCs aren't already operating as efficiently as they can?

At most TOCs, having more than one or two units out of service unexpectedly results in short-forms or cancelled services across their network.

There are plenty of examples of services that have long layovers because the running time for a round trip doesn't divide neatly into hours, as in the examples I gave. In most or all of those cases, it would be difficult to make more efficient use of vehicles without having an uneven timetable or messing things up elsewhere.

 

[najaB]

There are plenty of examples of services that have long layovers because the running time for a round trip doesn't divide neatly into hours, as in the examples I gave. In most or all of those cases, it would be difficult to make more efficient use of vehicles without having an uneven timetable or messing things up elsewhere.

It's not just vehicles you need to consider, it's also crew. Those long layovers are also useful for crew rest breaks, so while there might be a train sitting idle there won't be crew available to operate it.

If there's anything that the last couple of years has taught is it is that both physical and human assets are scheduled to within an inch of what is mechanically, legally and contractually allowable at many TOCs.

 

[stevieinselby]

It's not just vehicles you need to consider, it's also crew. Those long layovers are also useful for crew rest breaks, so while there might be a train sitting idle there won't be crew available to operate it.

If there's anything that the last couple of years has taught is it is that both physical and human assets are scheduled to within an inch of what is mechanically, legally and contractually allowable at many TOCs.

Sure, but (a) crew are cheaper than vehicles, and (ii) even if the crew need their breaks then, it still doesn't make sense for doubling of service to require more than doubling of resources. It should be more efficient to keep vehicles in service as much as possible and have crew swap between them instead of having vehicles sitting idle for long periods of time ... they don't need a PNB between journeys!

 

[Peterthegreat]

Sure, but (a) crew are cheaper than vehicles, and (ii) even if the crew need their breaks then, it still doesn't make sense for doubling of service to require more than doubling of resources. It should be more efficient to keep vehicles in service as much as possible and have crew swap between them instead of having vehicles sitting idle for long periods of time ... they don't need a PNB between journeys!

Absolutely correct. It would take an unusual set of circumstances to more than double the requirements.