Service reductions to save money?

[Bletchleyite]

It's noted in this thread:

Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

Either that's just an error, or they realise that last minute purchases on the last train of the day are generally distress purchases and they can charge what they like and maximise income? I wasn’t travelling myself, it was on behalf of someone else who asked my help with sorting their ticket...

www.railforums.co.uk

...that there's a choice between service reductions and fare increases to cut the cost of the railway to the Treasury. So what options are there to reduce services without causing major pain? It should be noted that complete closures of any line or station, or reduction thereof to a Parliamentary service i.e. one at a useless time or uselessly infrequent compared to what runs now, are out of scope of this thread - it is purely about what could be done to save money by reducing services without major pain. Major pain would be making a service basically useless or causing severe overcrowding such that people would be left behind. If possible, give the users of the line/station something that they might like in return for the cuts, provided it does not substantially increase cost, thus negating the point. It is also unlikely to be viable to impose these cuts on main InterCity routes.

This is essentially in the spirit of the "Tartan Taktfahrplan", a scheme that took place in Scotland in the 1980s (?) which reduced services but brought them into a clockface pattern, which gave something in return for the cut. Thus, bonus for suggestions that make a line have a clockface service if it did not before, though there are exceptions where the frequency is below hourly when this starts to become a disbenefit rather than a benefit.

A few starters.

Tring semifasts - these are very quiet during the day on weekdays and at some times on weekends e.g. early Sunday mornings. While it would require diagram changes because they interwork with the MKC stopper, I would propose that these are reduced to a "peak extras only" service, including Saturday and Sunday shopping peaks (though how necessary the latter are would depend on passenger loading surveys). In compensation, the half-hourly MKC stoppers would be worked by 10-car 730/2 formations at all times, providing plenty of capacity. This would also reduce the need for shunting, which can be a cost saving in itself, if most 730/2s remained in semi permanent pairs.

Southport line - reduce to hourly, but find a way to make it an hourly Manchester Airport (or Piccadilly using the reversing siding)-Southport service as that seems to be what most users of that line want. A couple of peak extras each way to be added to Victoria. This is basically the pre-1998 but post-Windsor Link service. All services to be maximum length (4 car?)

WCML fast service - remove the newly introduced Birmingham semifast aside from peak extras; replace with adding the calls back into the Scotland service. This service is not well used and due to the high fares the 2tph Birmingham wasn't generally full because people prefer the WMT services as a better price-speed balance. Consider terminating some Scotland via Birmingham trains at Preston/Blackpool again if these are quiet.

Conwy Valley - reduce the number of train pairs slightly, but rather than a blind every-3-hours service target specific trains to specific purposes. I've proposed a timetable for this elsewhere before. Consider turning some trains at Betws to enable this further, but retain at least three trains per day south thereof, again with due consideration of times being most useful.

Morecambe - reduce to hourly clockface so far as possible; consider making it a simple single unit shuttle rather than through services from Yorkshire though these may be useful in terms of maintaining Heysham service.

Any more suggestions?

 

[A S Leib]

I don't know how well-used they are, but could Southend Victoria and Shoeburyness service be cut from 3 and 4 tph to 2 each?

The problem with some cases I can think of, like Alloa / Dunblane, is that they're 2tph now, and whilst a 30-minute wait if one's cancelled or barely missed might be acceptable, I think passengers are far likelier to move to available alternatives if the wait is an hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with some cases I can think of, like Alloa / Dunblane, is that they're 2tph now, and whilst a 30-minute wait if one's cancelled or barely missed might be acceptable, I think passengers are far likelier to move to available alternatives if the wait is an hour.

While it will depend on what layover options there are (e.g. there aren't any for the Merseyrail Ormskirk line) you can of course improve punctuality/reliability with a cut. If you have a 4tph service you reduce to 2tph you don't necessarily need to halve the numbers of units/crews in every case, you might be able to keep one more in and increase layover times. Personally I'd rather a punctual, reliable 2tph service than a messy 4tph one with lots of cancellations.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

All services to be maximum length (4 car?)

I think you could fit longer trains on the Southport line with SDO, Southport has plenty of space, as does Wigan-Bolton, the real limitation would be the Manchester side.
Most of the intermediate stations Wigan-Southport probably can't fit more than 4 carriages.

Southport line - reduce to hourly, but find a way to make it an hourly Manchester Airport (or Piccadilly using the reversing siding)-Southport service as that seems to be what most users of that line want. A couple of peak extras each way to be added to Victoria. This is basically the pre-1998 but post-Windsor Link service. All services to be maximum length (4 car?)

To replace this regularly would an additional Wigan terminus service) presumably in Wigan North Western with wires) be added for the other half hour?

 

[Bletchleyite]

To replace this regularly would an additional Wigan terminus service) presumably in Wigan North Western with wires) be added for the other half hour?

In some ways it's a bit of a pain that Victoria is so much less useful, because otherwise your obvious pattern would be one Southport-Atherton-Vic, one Headbolt-Atherton-Vic (both DMU) and two Airport-Bolton-Wigan NW (EMU). I think you would really struggle to sell the service being halved and only the Victoria half remaining, whereas I think you could sell it being halved if the Oxford Road went to at least Piccadilly.

The one thing that might sell that would be if all trains were 195s (3 car off peak, 5 car peak) so you have a rolling stock upgrade. But are there enough to do that? If you could also get them to Headbolt you could probably upgrade Atherton line timings due to the EMU like acceleration.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Where do you envisafe the savings accrue from a reduced service?
As far as I can see you only really make savings on possibly having to lease less rolling stock, but I imagine this would, on most routes only amount to 1 or maybe 2 units, or on needing less staff and make them redundant, even leaving aside trade union issues the savings on this would, in relative terms, be very small.
You still have the costs of maintaining the route.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The one thing that might sell that would be if all trains were 195s (3 car off peak, 5 car peak) so you have a rolling stock upgrade. But are there enough to do that? If you could also get them to Headbolt you could probably upgrade Atherton line timings due to the EMU like acceleration.

While I would absolutely support that, there definitely aren't enough 195s.
In addition, I'm not entirely sure on how the rules for SDO where only 1 non-gangwayed unit will fit work (for the stations between Headbolt Lane and Pemberton), would the back unit have to be locked out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In addition, I'm not entirely sure on how the rules for SDO where only 1 non-gangwayed unit will fit work (for the stations between Headbolt Lane and Pemberton), would the back unit have to be locked out?

No. When a 6 car unit operates on the Windermere branch, there are units that are not platformed at all at Burneside and Staveley (or one of the two, I forget now). There are posters at all the stations explaining this, and guards make announcements at the station before.

Having said that, Headbolt-Wigan is very quiet (I'm only not proposing a reduction there because it would save only one unit, or perhaps fewer than one, and it would drop to two hourly which would be a bit useless in the context), and at present they do lock out the rear unit when more than 2 cars go that way, and it isn't a massive issue because it's so quiet, so it may be preferred to continue with this rather than use ASDO.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

No. When a 6 car unit operates on the Windermere branch, there are units that are not platformed at all at Burneside and Staveley (or one of the two, I forget now). There are posters at all the stations explaining this, and guards make announcements at the station before.

That should be fine then (all in theory of course, 195s aren't currently cleared beyond the sidings just West of Wallgate)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That should be fine then (all in theory of course, 195s aren't currently cleared beyond the sidings just West of Wallgate)

I suppose you could offer refurbished 158s, but then you wouldn't get the speed up and the aircon is known to be rubbish. I guess the viability would depend on how much it would cost to clear them.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I suppose you could offer refurbished 158s, but then you wouldn't get the speed up and the aircon is known to be rubbish. I guess the viability would depend on how much it would cost to clear them.

I think we'll see either the new units (~2030) be cleared for them, or the 195s, maybe both.
Would they refubish the 158s when they only have ~7 years left? Compared to the 769s whatever is put on the Southport like would have better acceleration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another possible one to look at - would it be feasible to cut Barrow/Windermere back to Preston if we make sure all the Blackpool services are 6 car? You might want to leave the last train pair as a through service as otherwise that would mean the last Manchester-Lancaster service was too early - this caused controversy when they tried to move it an hour or so earlier as part of the Castlefield work. Or consider seeing if the later service TPE wanted to run to Lancaster could be reinstated - that only didn't happen because Avanti refused to staff the station late enough for it, which might be less of an issue post GBR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

Would they refubish the 158s when they only have ~7 years left?

I meant the ones that already were and thus have a 195-style interior (the 2-car sets with the ironing board seating). Ideally not the 3-cars which have no legroom due to thicker cushions fitted to the existing seats - whoever specced those needs the sack, they're worse than a 153 or 150/2.

Compared to the 769s whatever is put on the Southport like would have better acceleration.

There is that, plus scrapping the 769s would increase punctuality/reliability because they break down all the time.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Scrap the off peak Manchester - Crewe via Stockport. Add additional stops at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel to another service to cover if required.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I meant the ones that already were and thus have a 195-style interior (the 2-car sets with the ironing board seating). Ideally not the 3-cars which have no legroom due to thicker cushions fitted to the existing seats

Although if you wanted to make 5 car sets for peak services into Manchester using the existing 3s and coupling a 2 to it is much easier than re-forming the existing 2 cars.

I think any proposal to cut services would be opposed by the users, even if offering incentives like longer trains or direct services to more places

 

[Starmill]

It should be noted that complete closures of any line or station, or reduction thereof to a Parliamentary service i.e. one at a useless time or uselessly infrequent compared to what runs now, are out of scope of this thread - it is purely about what could be done to save money by reducing services without major pain.

The Helsby - Ellesmere Port and peak Stockport - Chester service falls into the first category and the second. The entire diagram consists of a small number of very lightly used services. The Helsby - Ellesmere Port section often runs with zero passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Helsby - Ellesmere Port and peak Stockport - Chester service falls into the first category and the second. The entire diagram consists of a small number of very lightly used services. The Helsby - Ellesmere Port section often runs with zero passengers.

I don't really want to turn this into another neo-Beeching thread - if you want one of those can I suggest starting one separately? In any case, I think Headbolt and Ellesmere Port-Helsby would be better as part of Merseyrail - this wouldn't reduce costs, but combined with significant housing development (e.g. in Ince and Elton and Helsby itself) may provide a viable alternative to considering total closure.

 

[PTR 444]

In some ways it's a bit of a pain that Victoria is so much less useful, because otherwise your obvious pattern would be one Southport-Atherton-Vic, one Headbolt-Atherton-Vic (both DMU) and two Airport-Bolton-Wigan NW (EMU). I think you would really struggle to sell the service being halved and only the Victoria half remaining, whereas I think you could sell it being halved if the Oxford Road went to at least Piccadilly.

The one thing that might sell that would be if all trains were 195s (3 car off peak, 5 car peak) so you have a rolling stock upgrade. But are there enough to do that? If you could also get them to Headbolt you could probably upgrade Atherton line timings due to the EMU like acceleration.

Could sending both Atherton Line trains (from Southport and Headbolt Lane) to Piccadilly/Airport be workable? You can then keep the Wigan - Stalybridge electrics as they are and potentially add additional DMU stoppers on the Atherton Line to Victoria.

Or alternatively if Headbolt - Wigan goes to Merseyrail, the Atherton Line can consist of 2tph Wigan to Victoria (and beyond) and 1tph Southport - Airport.

 

[I'm here now]

It's noted in this thread:

Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

Either that's just an error, or they realise that last minute purchases on the last train of the day are generally distress purchases and they can charge what they like and maximise income? I wasn’t travelling myself, it was on behalf of someone else who asked my help with sorting their ticket...

www.railforums.co.uk

...that there's a choice between service reductions and fare increases to cut the cost of the railway to the Treasury. So what options are there to reduce services without causing major pain? It should be noted that complete closures of any line or station, or reduction thereof to a Parliamentary service i.e. one at a useless time or uselessly infrequent compared to what runs now, are out of scope of this thread - it is purely about what could be done to save money by reducing services without major pain. Major pain would be making a service basically useless or causing severe overcrowding such that people would be left behind. If possible, give the users of the line/station something that they might like in return for the cuts, provided it does not substantially increase cost, thus negating the point. It is also unlikely to be viable to impose these cuts on main InterCity routes.

This is essentially in the spirit of the "Tartan Taktfahrplan", a scheme that took place in Scotland in the 1980s (?) which reduced services but brought them into a clockface pattern, which gave something in return for the cut. Thus, bonus for suggestions that make a line have a clockface service if it did not before, though there are exceptions where the frequency is below hourly when this starts to become a disbenefit rather than a benefit.

A few starters.

Tring semifasts - these are very quiet during the day on weekdays and at some times on weekends e.g. early Sunday mornings. While it would require diagram changes because they interwork with the MKC stopper, I would propose that these are reduced to a "peak extras only" service, including Saturday and Sunday shopping peaks (though how necessary the latter are would depend on passenger loading surveys). In compensation, the half-hourly MKC stoppers would be worked by 10-car 730/2 formations at all times, providing plenty of capacity. This would also reduce the need for shunting, which can be a cost saving in itself, if most 730/2s remained in semi permanent pairs.

Southport line - reduce to hourly, but find a way to make it an hourly Manchester Airport (or Piccadilly using the reversing siding)-Southport service as that seems to be what most users of that line want. A couple of peak extras each way to be added to Victoria. This is basically the pre-1998 but post-Windsor Link service. All services to be maximum length (4 car?)

WCML fast service - remove the newly introduced Birmingham semifast aside from peak extras; replace with adding the calls back into the Scotland service. This service is not well used and due to the high fares the 2tph Birmingham wasn't generally full because people prefer the WMT services as a better price-speed balance. Consider terminating some Scotland via Birmingham trains at Preston/Blackpool again if these are quiet.

Conwy Valley - reduce the number of train pairs slightly, but rather than a blind every-3-hours service target specific trains to specific purposes. I've proposed a timetable for this elsewhere before. Consider turning some trains at Betws to enable this further, but retain at least three trains per day south thereof, again with due consideration of times being most useful.

Morecambe - reduce to hourly clockface so far as possible; consider making it a simple single unit shuttle rather than through services from Yorkshire though these may be useful in terms of maintaining Heysham service.

Any more suggestions?

Cutting new road building funding to improve services, rather than downgrade them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could sending both Atherton Line trains (from Southport and Headbolt Lane) to Piccadilly/Airport be workable? You can then keep the Wigan - Stalybridge electrics as they are and potentially add additional DMU stoppers on the Atherton Line to Victoria.

Interesting question. You do have your existing Oxford Road path, plus if you were cutting the Barrow/Windermere back to Preston you have that path to work with as well. They aren't however completely opposite each other, you would end up with an odd split:

xx15 - present Southport arrival
xx54 - present Cumbria arrival
(39-21 split)

xx27 - present Southport departure
xx53 - present Cumbria departure
(36-24 split)

It might be possible to actually work with that to be fair, though it would mean an odd interval on Atherton and possibly having the hourly stops at the quieter stations in the Southport one way and the Headbolt the other way, though there is precedent for that with Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel.

You'd then have the EMU services as North Western-Bolton-Victoria twice an hour. Which would be fine, as Bolton-Picc has the half hourly Blackpool.

Actually, that doesn't look too bad an option, unless the people of Atherton would shout about moving to Castlefield in the same way Sandgrounders shout about Victoria, though to be honest Castlefield is probably more desirable generally than Victoria, both because Vic is a smelly fume filled dump and because it's worse located for most of the city centre. It's also less split going from Manchester when people are more likely to turn up and go - the other way most likely people would use a planner and leave home aiming for a specific train.

With regard to the Barrow my observation from using these in the past is that there's a significant turnover of passengers at Preston and they can often be very quiet between Preston and Lancaster - though I'm not sure I would cut them to Lancaster because that might leave an inadequate service between the two. However that would be a possible consideration, as there are two Avantis per hour and a TPE.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

I am not at all convinced that the Brighton line warrants 10TPH South of Gatwick on weekday off peak hours (weekends are potentially different). The traditional 1/2 hourly Coastway services from Victoria that in years past divided at Haywards Heath are now 2 8-car formations running a few minutes apart with duplication of crews between Victoria and Haywards Heath - potentially one of these could start from Victoria, with the other providing a connection from Haywards Heath, saving approx. 90 mins of productive crew time each half hour for the return trip that wouldn't operate between Victoria and Haywards Heath. Additionally the same may apply to the Brighton Thameslink service - is there a need for 4TPH 12-car formations to Brighton SX off peak? - could 2TPH terminate short at Gatwick or Three Bridges?

 

[A S Leib]

Additionally the same may apply to the Brighton Thameslink service - is there a need for 4TPH 12-car formations to Brighton SX off peak? - could 2TPH terminate short at Gatwick or Three Bridges?

I don't think passenger numbers to either are massive, but as almost all of the Thameslink network is based around 2tph, I think that would mean telling Bedford (Luton, St. Albans) or Cambridge (Stevenage) that they're losing all of their off-peak Brighton services (not that somewhere like City Thameslink is a particularly difficult interchange).

 

[Class15]

The Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside 4tph could likely be reduced to 3tph off-peak, the services are always very lightly loaded in my experience.

 

[The Planner]

Scrap the off peak Manchester - Crewe via Stockport. Add additional stops at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel to another service to cover if required.

Surely you would get rid of the Alderley Edge, how is getting rid of the Crewe better?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Because the Alderley Edge neatly connects with the via Airport service to Crewe for the tiny number of people travelling beyond.

 

[The Planner]

WCML fast service - remove the newly introduced Birmingham semifast aside from peak extras; replace with adding the calls back into the Scotland service. This service is not well used and due to the high fares the 2tph Birmingham wasn't generally full because people prefer the WMT services as a better price-speed balance. Consider terminating some Scotland via Birmingham trains at Preston/Blackpool again if these are quiet.

Screws the timetable if you do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

Because the Alderley Edge neatly connects with the via Airport service to Crewe for the tiny number of people travelling beyond.

Still makes no sense, Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Goostrey and Chelford lose any connectivity north of Wilmslow. Getting rid of the Alderley Edge doesn't do that.
Its a 13 minute connection at Wilmslow from the Alderley Edge terminator to the Crewe service, xx.03 arrival into a xx.16 to Crewe, that isn't neat.
Northbound its a xx.40 arrival into a xx.36 departure, a 56 minute wait. Awful.

 

[stevieinselby]

Where do you envisafe the savings accrue from a reduced service?
As far as I can see you only really make savings on possibly having to lease less rolling stock, but I imagine this would, on most routes only amount to 1 or maybe 2 units, or on needing less staff and make them redundant, even leaving aside trade union issues the savings on this would, in relative terms, be very small.
You still have the costs of maintaining the route.

Yes, potentially fewer units needed (although it depends if you're cutting off-peak services only then you might not reduce the number needed), but also less fuel/power needed, less maintenance on trains and track needed, reduced staffing costs. The savings may be small, sure, but if they can be made without any significant degradation of the service (ie, there is currently overprovision or inefficient provision) then savings are savings.

With many TOCs short of staff and struggling to recruit enough to run the current services, it's extremely unlikely that any cuts of the level we're talking about here would lead to compulsory redundancies or even voluntary redundancies, more likely it would be simply allow the operators to have a full complement of staff, and any small reduction in the numbers needed would be mopped up as natural wastage (ie people retiring or leaving for other reasons)

 

[Bertie the bus]

Still makes no sense, Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Goostrey and Chelford lose any connectivity north of Wilmslow. Getting rid of the Alderley Edge doesn't do that.

Do Sandbach and Holmes Chapel need connectivity to Handforth and Cheadle Hulme? As for Goostrey and Chelford I'm not at all convinced they need a daytime off peak service at all. The passenger numbers are tiny.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where do you envisafe the savings accrue from a reduced service?
As far as I can see you only really make savings on possibly having to lease less rolling stock, but I imagine this would, on most routes only amount to 1 or maybe 2 units, or on needing less staff and make them redundant, even leaving aside trade union issues the savings on this would, in relative terms, be very small.
You still have the costs of maintaining the route.

Reduction in reliance on expensive overtime.
Savings in diesel (it isn't taxed, but it is still substantial given that DMUs I believe do about a gallon per mile).
Potentially some reductions in lease costs if e.g. you get rid of the utter junk that is the Class 769 and in maintenance of those units.
Fewer delay payments if it can be done in a way that improves the service quality.

 

[cle]

By nature a reductive conversation, but no doubt there are some services which could be simplified off peak to save units/money.

I see these more in the higher frequency areas mentioned than the 3-4 times a day or hourly rurual connections, which are the ones that send people to their cars if not good.

That said, the c2c/LTS lines are basically a metro, and are used for local journeys, counter-commuting etc all day, much like the far nicer Southend Victoria route, which could easily be 6tph.

The BML is probably a candidate, especially the set 12 car 700s services. These off peak could probably be redirected to pick up a different Victoria service instead, eg the Eastbourne or Littlehampton. Vs 4tph to Brighton.

Ultimately the trains are needed out (NYC famously stables units by running them 24/7!) - and our travel patterns have changed into less standard ones. And of course, weekend travel is busier than much weekday - and so the units and staff are needed out there. Also evening commuter/peak runs later than ever, but many also start early and take off early... so we are really talking a 10:30am-3:30pm window here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately the trains are needed out (NYC famously stables units by running them 24/7!) - and our travel patterns have changed into less standard ones. And of course, weekend travel is busier than much weekday - and so the units and staff are needed out there. Also evening commuter/peak runs later than ever, but many also start early and take off early... so we are really talking a 10:30am-3:30pm window here.

There's a good point in bold there. I could absolutely see a case for the Monday-Friday Merseyrail service to be 2tph between about 10am and 3pm (so only 4 in the morning and evening peak), but by contrast the Sunday service from about 11am to 4pm to be 4tph. Similar things could probably be applied to other commuter/local type routes.