Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
In the list of passenger flows with one station outside London, Watford Junction is sixth with over 3 million journeys, and behind only Stansted, Gatwick, Reading, Milton Keynes and Manchester Piccadilly.
The trains run to Tring because it has the infrastructure for reversal.
Off peak cuts don't save very much. The key to making savings is cuts at peak times, only then is it possible to reduce the requirement for trains and crew.
If it's possible to leave the units in Euston and Tring rather than having to ship them out to Camden or Bletchley then it potentially saves an entire shift (times 3 diagrams).
Pretty much all of them between about 10am and 3pm on weekdays outside school holidays. That's why in the US so many of them operate during the morning and evening peaks only. If the cost of running them all day was truly negligible then they would, and similarly the WCML peak extras (a few extra Trings and an hourly fast Northampton during peak hours) would run all day.
I do for instance think there's a very strong case to drop Merseyrail to 2tph between the weekday peaks in order to free up money to increase the Sunday shopping day (say 1100-1700) to 4tph, which would be far more in tune with actual demand than what runs now (which has, bar the service beyond Rock Ferry, been basically exactly the same for the last 40 years or so since the base went from 3tph to 4 in the early 80s, and dating back to when Liverpool city centre was basically totally closed on a Sunday and when most families had only one parent working so there was a lot more demand for daytime travel, particularly as families typically only had one car and the husband tended to go to work in it in those days) and could potentially be cost neutral or actually save costs.
As for outer suburban services like around London I suspect those have always been quiet between about 10-3 weekdays outside school holidays as they don't serve much of a local travel purpose - the mentality in the South East is firmly that trains are for going to London and buses and cars are for local travel.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's getting it the wrong way round. Tring has that infrastructure precisely so those trains can run. It was built in the mid 2000s as part of West Coast Route Modernisation specifically to allow a Tring stopping shuttle to run (which later became a semifast with the stops going into the MKC service). I can't recall the actual structure of the timetable before that (though I did use it) but I seem to recall there was an hourly, maybe half-hourly, all stations Bletchley service instead, reversing in Platform 5, and possibly some Watford peak services - anyone know? This service was felt to be quiet enough that lopping it back to Tring was not considered an issue - and indeed the peak extras that run to/from Bletchley (because the units live there and they are crewed from there) tend to be extremely quiet north of Tring.
Off peak cuts don't save very much. The key to making savings is cuts at peak times, only then is it possible to reduce the requirement for trains and crew.
That isn't universally true. Having fewer staff diagrammed reduces costly overtime, and sometimes units are on contracts that make them expensive to run as they are mostly for peak extras, e.g. the notorious 350/2 lease. And there is the matter of electricity and diesel, which while it's not the greatest cost isn't trivial.
If it's possible to leave the units in Euston and Tring rather than having to ship them out to Camden or Bletchley then it potentially saves an entire shift (times 3 diagrams).
Where is the space to leave them at Euston? The Tring and Milton Keynes services interwork so getting rid of the Trings only just mean that the platforms are in use for longer.
Watford, as @Magdalia pointed out, is very high on the list of places going to London. Getting rid of 2 fast trains an hour is not a good idea. It makes the whole railway less accessible too, by getting rid of a turn-up-and-go service (4tph Euston-Watford and Euston-Harrow, two major flows).
How much money does it actually save, and how much does it outweigh revenue loss, both from people taking these trains and people alienated from using the railway by the less frequent and convenient service?
Pretty much all of them between about 10am and 3pm on weekdays outside school holidays. That's why in the US so many of them operate during the morning and evening peaks only. If the cost of running them all day was truly negligible then they would, and similarly the WCML peak extras (a few extra Trings and an hourly fast Northampton during peak hours) would run all day.
This is, in many cases, incorrect. On my local line, the ‘Mildmay’ line (North and West London lines) the trains are well-loaded throughout the day. This is a big generalisation that is not entirely true.
As for outer suburban services like around London I suspect those have always been quiet between about 10-3 weekdays outside school holidays as they don't serve much of a local travel purpose - the mentality in the South East is firmly that trains are for going to London and buses and cars are for local travel.
I can’t help thinking that if the Tring services could have been cut, they would have been. There is evidently a reason that the cost-cutting DfT continues to invest in these services.
I don't have much experience of their loadings at the times under discussion, but if they are largely carrying fresh air then probably yes (or if central London is still busy but the outer reaches aren't, turn more trains short where there is provision for that as there is in some cases). But due to the large number of tourists in London that effect is probably less marked than it is on services that are primarily used by commuters like the Trings and the Aylesbury Vale which has already been subject to exactly this sort of weekday off peak service cut, to a bit of whining initially but it's now largely been forgotten about and just accepted.
That's getting it the wrong way round. Tring has that infrastructure precisely so those trains can run. It was built in the mid 2000s as part of West Coast Route Modernisation specifically to allow a Tring stopping shuttle to run (which later became a semifast with the stops going into the MKC service). I can't recall the actual structure of the timetable before that (though I did use it) but I seem to recall there was an hourly, maybe half-hourly, all stations Bletchley service instead, reversing in Platform 5, and possibly some Watford peak services - anyone know
How Tring got its reversing platform doesn't matter, it is there now.
My recollection is that trains reversing at Bletchley did so on the slow lines, blocking other traffic. But there is a reversing platform at Milton Keynes which has been there for a while now.
Watford Junction has a reversing platform but now it is used by the West London Line trains.
That isn't universally true. Having fewer staff diagrammed reduces costly overtime, and sometimes units are on contracts that make them expensive to run as they are mostly for peak extras, e.g. the notorious 350/2 lease. And there is the matter of electricity and diesel, which while it's not the greatest cost isn't trivial.
Watford, as @Magdalia pointed out, is very high on the list of places going to London. Getting rid of 2 fast trains an hour is not a good idea. It makes the whole railway less accessible too, by getting rid of a turn-up-and-go service (4tph Euston-Watford and Euston-Harrow, two major flows).
4tph is not a turn up and go service unless you like a lot of standing around. Pretty much everyone I know who uses Merseyrail knows the departure times from their station (you only have to know one time and be able to add 15, 30 and 45 to it, or just 30 on a Sunday) and similarly those from their favoured central Liverpool station and times their arrival at either end for a suitable train.
The Tube, with headways between 5 and 2 minutes (or less in some cases) is a turn up and go service.
How much money does it actually save, and how much does it outweigh revenue loss, both from people taking these trains and people alienated from using the railway by the less frequent and convenient service?
This is a good question, I'd be interested to know, but the fact that this has already been done in places (e.g. Aylesbury) would suggest doing it is indeed economically sensible.
This is, in many cases, incorrect. On my local line, the ‘Mildmay’ line (North and West London lines) the trains are well-loaded throughout the day. This is a big generalisation that is not entirely true.
London's innersuburbans are often different from the kind of services I'm thinking of because they do provide a local transport function that lines typically don't outside London bar exceptions like Merseyrail and the T&W Metro - but I certainly do think Merseyrail could drop to 2tph during weekday daytimes - loadings are VERY low at those times.
I can’t help thinking that if the Tring services could have been cut, they would have been. There is evidently a reason that the cost-cutting DfT continues to invest in these services.
You could have said that of Aylesbury Vale in 2019. But now they have been cut in exactly the way I propose for other lines with similar demand profiles.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My recollection is that trains reversing at Bletchley did so on the slow lines, blocking other traffic. But there is a reversing platform at Milton Keynes which has been there for a while now.
MKC has had a reversing platform since it was built. It used to be 1 but it's now 2, they were swapped when it was rebuilt (and the often forgotten East West bay was added, as well as P6).
If it's possible to leave the units in Euston and Tring rather than having to ship them out to Camden or Bletchley then it potentially saves an entire shift (times 3 diagrams).
Network Rail are in general strongly opposed to increases to stabling in platforms. Controllers can ask for additional permission to occupy platforms of course, and usually, I'd expect that to be granted as the least worst option, but planning this is tricky.
Network Rail are in general strongly opposed to increases to stabling in platforms. Controllers can ask for additional permission to occupy platforms of course, and usually, I'd expect that to be granted as the least worst option, but planning this is tricky.
I don't have much experience of their loadings at the times under discussion, but if they are largely carrying fresh air then probably yes (or if central London is still busy but the outer reaches aren't, turn more trains short where there is provision for that as there is in some cases). But due to the large number of tourists in London that effect is probably less marked than it is on services that are primarily used by commuters like the Trings and the Aylesbury Vale which has already been subject to exactly this sort of weekday off peak service cut, to a bit of whining initially but it's now largely been forgotten about and just accepted.
I wouldn’t say LU services are empty at weekday off-peak times. What does happen is that demand tends to be heavier in one direction than the other at times, but this is just one of those facts of life. For example you can guarantee that a weekday train travelling in to London will be very empty at 2200 in the evening, but will likely have been quite busy on its previous outbound journey.
What you could do on LU is terminate more trains short of the extremities at certain times, but this just introduces its own problems.
It would be better to scrap the off peak Manchester to Alderley Edge service via Stockport.
It would also be better to scrap all the Southport to Manchester Oxford Road services than the service from Southport to Manchester Victoria, but maintain a half hourly service on the Atherton line. This would be operationally simpler, reducing crossing moves, and and relieve pressure on the Castlefield line.
It would also be better to scrap all the Southport to Manchester Oxford Road services than the service from Southport to Manchester Victoria, but maintain a half hourly service on the Atherton line. This would be operationally simpler, reducing crossing moves, and and relieve pressure on the Castlefield line.
This is your classic bugbear of course. However, dropping Southport to hourly and offering them nothing at all in return (i.e. hourly to Vic and no rolling stock upgrade) would cause an absolute uproar. Whereas I think hourly to Castlefield with 195s or similar would be accepted as a reasonable balance.
How many people commute from Southport to Oxford Road or Piccadilly? I think 'uproar' is a tad dramatic, and as with many of these changes, most people wouldn't notice and would adapt fairly quickly.
It's also not in Greater Manchester, or the TTW - I don't know why they would think they should have a service.
How many people commute from Southport to Oxford Road or Piccadilly? I think 'uproar' is a tad dramatic, and as with many of these changes, most people wouldn't notice and would adapt fairly quickly.
You've not come across OPSTA (the Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association) have you? They are a very vocal group and know how to use the media and politicians to their advantage. Indeed the fact that the line presently retains a service to Oxford Road (and not just 2tph to Victoria) is likely to be their doing.
Regardless of what political construct it is in, it definitely is in the area where people commute in reasonable numbers to Manchester. There's a lot of internal commuting within the Liverpool-Manchester-Preston triangle and places around it, supported by the web-like rather than radial rail network that area enjoys (though the majority of it is by car). It has been often argued that TfGM and Merseytravel would be better off as one combined thing also including chunks of Lancashire and Cheshire, but that is probably politically unachievable despite the economic benefits that might bring. The West Midlands is often called the UK's Rhein-Ruhr with lots of commuting between its various parts, but the North West is not dissimilar either.
Castlefield (Oxford Road) is of particular value because of proximity to the University. This might be less of an issue if Metrolink went down Oxford Road, but as it doesn't direct services to that area are definitely valued - not just because Victoria is an abject dump. I'd not know how many off hand, but there are certainly people who have moved to places along the Southport line (by the way, it is in GM as far as Appley Bridge!) specifically to commute to the University area on a service that has existed for the last approximately 40 years since the opening of the Windsor Link.
The peak services between Southport and Manchester Oxford Road are 75 minutes. Changing at Bolton is 85 minutes. Neither sounds the first bit appealing to me, I think it would be my idea of hell doing that commute. From Burscough isn't quite as bad at an hour each way.
We often slight SNCF for their "white periods" in the middle of weekdays, but I think these are really at the heart of the issue - demand is extremely low at these times outside of school holidays and many commuter type routes could stand a significant service decrease at these times.
The peak services between Southport and Manchester Oxford Road are 75 minutes. Changing at Bolton is 85 minutes. Neither sounds the first bit appealing to me, I think it would be my idea of hell doing that commute. From Burscough isn't quite as bad at an hour each way.
There's quite a few do do it from Burscough, it's a nice place to live (and getting nicer to be honest, it's getting quite trendy now) yet massively, massively cheaper than similar places in most of Greater Manchester. Used to be a bit run down when I was a kid but it's now really swapped places with Ormskirk for niceness. These days you could perhaps compare it to Marple/Marple Bridge but without the hills.
I'd imagine plenty do from e.g. Appley Bridge too, because being in GM the fares are a fair whack lower, e.g. the CountyCard is valid (or whatever that is called now).
I 99% agree with you but I do think that some fat could be cut service wise to reduce services or better use resources. If a train is regularly empty, irrespective of the 'trend' in off peak travel, its silly running it, especially if there are alternatives.
One of the biggest problems is what to do with the train between the peaks. There are limited options to stable the trains at the city centre terminus (which is where their morning peak run is likely to finish and their afternoon peak run is likely to start), so if you're going to make any significant inroads into reducing surplus capacity then you're potentially going to have a lot of trains needing to be stabled for several hours during the middle of the day and nowhere near enough capacity to do so. Even if you do effectively a dead run back out to the country end of the line, finding stabling space that doesn't interfere with the ongoing daytime service is going to be tricky.
Given that the rolling stock cost is sunk and some of the crew cost is sunk too, it doesn't take much to cover the marginal costs of an offpeak journey. A train might look empty, but a handful of passengers in each carriage will generate for that train the 3-figure (commuter) and 4-figure (inter-city) sums that'll pay for that trip.
It's rare that out of a train's entire off-peak circuitry all trips are quiet or empty - often you need that emptier move trip as a positioning move for the next busier trip anyway.
As I've said before, much of the service restoration happened during Treasury micro-managing subsidy reduction initiative days of the previous government. I very much doubt things would have been signed off if they were subsidy increasing initiatives.
One of the biggest problems is what to do with the train between the peaks. There are limited options to stable the trains at the city centre terminus (which is where their morning peak run is likely to finish and their afternoon peak run is likely to start), so if you're going to make any significant inroads into reducing surplus capacity then you're potentially going to have a lot of trains needing to be stabled for several hours during the middle of the day and nowhere near enough capacity to do so. Even if you do effectively a dead run back out to the country end of the line, finding stabling space that doesn't interfere with the ongoing daytime service is going to be tricky.
The 'fat' that I referred to that could be trimmed would be (path dependent) cutting things like the TPE Berwick-Edinburgh service and just extend the Scotrail Dunbar stopper (or TPE incorporates the stopper into it's service). My example of the Avanti services to Wrexham which are empty mostly a waste of time.
If there are also cases of trains running empty as Bletchleyite says, there may be some cases where it is better to find places for these units to park up for a few hours. Yes that may mean 1 journey each way against the peak flow but that's better than units plodding up and down the line for hours wasting money. Without going into every single little example, to use one that Bletchleyite raises, the Tring stopper, these units could go into Bletchley depot for a few hours then come back out. The depot has space because it's the middle of the day and most trains are out in service and you are never going to make so many cuts off peak that the depot would be full.
Will it work in all cases, no course it won't. Will it work in some cases, yes it will. It's not an all or nothing.
This is your classic bugbear of course. However, dropping Southport to hourly and offering them nothing at all in return (i.e. hourly to Vic and no rolling stock upgrade) would cause an absolute uproar. Whereas I think hourly to Castlefield with 195s or similar would be accepted as a reasonable balance.
What about having Crosscountry run no further north than York and no further south than Basingstoke, and having connections with services to/from London which would otherwise empty as they travel further from London. So making the network work in a more efficient way by recycling spare capacity.
Some of the released staff/stock costs could be redeployed to other parts of the Crosscountry network.
Not saying this should happen. Just seems to fit the requirements of this thread.
With 4tph I would absolutely check before leaving, don't want to miss it by 1 minute or have 12 minutes to spare.
Not to say 4tph isn't reasonable in many places, I just think it isn't good enough to not check or have memorised it.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
