Are Swiss trains genuinely reliable?

[NCT]

The two models don’t achieve the same though. They almost might if everything runs every 15 minutes, but at less than that - the usual 30 Minute Standard - the Swiss way will achieve significantly shorter overall journey times especially if there is more than one connection involved.

I don’t dispute that it comes with a huge bill and that not everyone will want to pay it; for the U.K. it would probably unaffordable (not because you are so poor but because the country is so large, and as you rightly pointed out your stations don’t really lend themselves to Expansion) The Swiss do however, as they have stated several times at various referenda.

I never suggested the two models achieved the same thing. The important thing is either model would represent a significant betterment on the GB model of today. If GB is bronze (if that), Switzerland gold, Netherlands silver (at least silver plus in my book), then silver is a good and realistic goal to aim for.

Just like the Netherlands, GB has a lot of semi 15-minute nodes - 4tph on one side splitting towards 2tph on the branches. The Swiss would tend to flight the 4tph to ensure both the 2tph branches connect well (like Spiez), whereas the Dutch would tend to do the opposite (like Roermond). Places like Stoke-On-Trent can do a Roermond with relative ease but doing a Spiez would be too expensive, and the relative strengths of the various markets favours giving Stoke - Manchester an evenly spread 4tph fast service over having Alsager connecting to everything.

The Dutch model is not only more suited to the GB geography, it's also Treasury friendly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2025 ==

Exactly my point. These were not minor upgrades, they involved significant spends. Unfortunately in the UK we don't seem to like spending significant sums to get major improvements, we seem to prefer spending as little as possible. Hence all the arguments about tweaking the existing network rather than building a high speed line.

If we are 'only' going for the Dutch model then there isn't an inherent necessity of making trains slower. This only involves regularising / standardising services, not making them wait for each other.

The kind of 'tidying up' might involve
- Moving everything around the clockface to a common symmetry
- Not trying to run everything across Ordsall Lane Junction. Let the 4 track formation through Manchester Victoria function as two independent systems, and use the capacity created to run a proper service level over the Ordsall Chord so north and south Manchester can be done with a simple interchange
- Not having Crewe - Stoke worked by two uncoordinated services with zero regard to symmetry. Instead have a standardised strict half-hourly Crewe - Stoke - Stafford (- Birmingham) service
- Tidying up station throat workings at London Victoria and eliminating interworking between fast and slow sides

If some of these involve an element of cost, then it would be within the typical UK affordability envelope.

Where we might go for the Swiss model - Swiss enhancements mainly involved bypassing slow twisty mountain railways with 140-160km/h cut-offs (with the exception of the 200km/h Olten - Bern / Solothurn). Britain's starting point is 90-125mph (140-200km/h) main lines so we can actually afford a bit of slack compared to Switzerland (in a post HS2 world, realistically). In other words what the Swiss had to spend money on, we already have, and we ARE spending big money on HS2 (however mismanaged the project is).

Then comes the element of luck.

Chester - Shrewsbury - Hereford are ~55-minute journey time sections without having to do anything. You get a Swiss takt entirely for free. Then you have Nuneaton - Tamworth - Lichfield - Rugeley where again you get takt nodes for free just by coordinating Up and Down service timings. And it just happens that Nuneaton - Coventry - Leaming Spa have 'takt ready' running times too.

 

[Belperpete]

If we are 'only' going for the Dutch model then there isn't an inherent necessity of making trains slower. This only involves regularising / standardising services, not making them wait for each other.

The kind of 'tidying up' might involve
- Moving everything around the clockface to a common symmetry
- Not trying to run everything across Ordsall Lane Junction. Let the 4 track formation through Manchester Victoria function as two independent systems, and use the capacity created to run a proper service level over the Ordsall Chord so north and south Manchester can be done with a simple interchange
- Not having Crewe - Stoke worked by two uncoordinated services with zero regard to symmetry. Instead have a standardised strict half-hourly Crewe - Stoke - Stafford (- Birmingham) service
- Tidying up station throat workings at London Victoria and eliminating interworking between fast and slow sides

If some of these involve an element of cost, then it would be within the typical UK affordability envelope.

Where we might go for the Swiss model - Swiss enhancements mainly involved bypassing slow twisty mountain railways with 140-160km/h cut-offs (with the exception of the 200km/h Olten - Bern / Solothurn). Britain's starting point is 90-125mph (140-200km/h) main lines so we can actually afford a bit of slack compared to Switzerland (in a post HS2 world, realistically). In other words what the Swiss had to spend money on, we already have, and we ARE spending big money on HS2 (however mismanaged the project is).

Then comes the element of luck.

Chester - Shrewsbury - Hereford are ~55-minute journey time sections without having to do anything. You get a Swiss takt entirely for free. Then you have Nuneaton - Tamworth - Lichfield - Rugeley where again you get takt nodes for free just by coordinating Up and Down service timings. And it just happens that Nuneaton - Coventry - Leaming Spa have 'takt ready' running times too.

What is the relevance of any of that to the point I was making about the disincentive to make small improvements after you have locked yourself into a takt system?

 

[Tester]

There is a mixture of 00/30 nodes and 15/45 nodes in Switzerland. I've just been looking at Thun and Spiez - they don't appear to be 'nationally strategic' (if that's a phrase) nodes but there are a number of routes converging at both locations. They appear to be neither 00/30 nor 15/45 nodes, yet there seems to be something that works.

They are both of course related to 00/30 at Bern.

 

[johncrossley]

Not everywhere, still plenty of single line sections, which can cause severe knock on chaos if there's even a slight delay. Experienced it on more than one occasion and chaos was fairly widespread not just on that section.

So grass is greener and all that ...

Wouldn't you notice a significant improvement in performance if you travelled on Swiss trains regularly after travelling on British trains regularly?

 

[Tester]

Wouldn't you notice a significant improvement in performance if you travelled on Swiss trains regularly after travelling on British trains regularly?

Of course, but not invented here and all that ...

 

[NCT]

What is the relevance of any of that to the point I was making about the disincentive to make small improvements after you have locked yourself into a takt system?

How do you define improvements?

 

[The exile]

What is the relevance of any of that to the point I was making about the disincentive to make small improvements after you have locked yourself into a takt system?

Otherwise known as no temptation to fiddle.

Once you have a Takt system that works you leave it alone, which means that people can build their lives round it, rather than waking up to discover that all the trains now leave 2 minutes earlier so instead of leaving the office and just catching the train they now have a 28 minute wait.

One of the reasons trams and trains attract people to public transport more than buses is the latter’s danger of “here today, gone tomorrow”.

Faffing around with timetables every six months to screw the last drop out of resources is a way of the railway throwing away one of its advantages.

Yes - have major revisions when it’s really worth it, but otherwise, let people know they can rely on it long term.

 

[Austriantrain]

I never suggested the two models achieved the same thing. The important thing is either model would represent a significant betterment on the GB model of today. If GB is bronze (if that), Switzerland gold, Netherlands silver (at least silver plus in my book), then silver is a good and realistic goal to aim for.

Just like the Netherlands, GB has a lot of semi 15-minute nodes - 4tph on one side splitting towards 2tph on the branches. The Swiss would tend to flight the 4tph to ensure both the 2tph branches connect well (like Spiez), whereas the Dutch would tend to do the opposite (like Roermond). Places like Stoke-On-Trent can do a Roermond with relative ease but doing a Spiez would be too expensive, and the relative strengths of the various markets favours giving Stoke - Manchester an evenly spread 4tph fast service over having Alsager connecting to everything.

The Dutch model is not only more suited to the GB geography, it's also Treasury friendly.

I never disagreed. I wrote something similar years ago here (answer #79)

How would a national regular interval timetable be planned?

That's certainly something places with a bitty rail network such as Wales should be doing. It's inexplicable that they actively decided (it's minuted somewhere) not to build Trawscymru into this. It was suggested and scoped out in general terms as long ago as 1999 ....no action taken.

www.railforums.co.uk

(Answer #79)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Wouldn't you notice a significant improvement in performance if you travelled on Swiss trains regularly after travelling on British trains regularly?

It’s quite funny why every discussion about how punctual Swiss trains are branches off into why the Swiss system is not so good after all.

It actually *is* excellent. It is also, however, very expensive.

That works in Switzerland because they started small and cheap at a time where the Swiss were almost as car-obsessed as every one else. The benefits were perceived as so good that there has been massive public support for the expenditure needed ever since. It does help that the Swiss are hard-nosed about money and while they are prepared to spend a lot, they will only do it if it is necessary (Hence their reluctance to go beyond a base 30-minute frequency).*

It is Not something you can easily transfer to the U.K. - the public support for that kind of investment is not there, the current Infrastructure is ill-suited for it and there are, as has been rightly pointed out, alternatives that cost less and would still bring excellent results.

*there is an exception to this in that the Swiss always make sure that investemenr is not only limited to their denographic and „economic „powerhouses“, but also reaches the regions. That is a direct consequence of the way their federation and direct democracy are structured and ensures broad support, at a price of course.

While I could be wrong, my impression is that the U.K. never managed to convince the voters that HS2 improves things for most of the country rather than only London and maybe Manchester.

 

[styles]

I visit Switzerland most years and my main mode of transport is by train - Eurostar, intercity, and local.

I can only recall one "issue". And I've put that in quotes because the railway considered it an issue when I actually didn't. There was something wrong with the train I was booked on, so they swapped the set out for a different set, formed from the same number and class of carriages as the original. It left from the same platform at the same time. The railway staff were very apologetic and even gave me a free coffee for the "inconvenience". Totally different mindset.

I've always found them very reliable, affordable at least by Swiss pricing standards, and comfortable. Also always happy to get paprika crisps from the trolley.

 

[johncrossley]

When you are a visitor you are less likely to encounter disruption compared to a local. The main reason why I started this thread was to investigate whether regular travellers in Switzerland experience low levels of delay and cancellation. The consensus so far suggests that is the case.

 

[NCT]

I never disagreed. I wrote something similar years ago here (answer #79)

How would a national regular interval timetable be planned?

That's certainly something places with a bitty rail network such as Wales should be doing. It's inexplicable that they actively decided (it's minuted somewhere) not to build Trawscymru into this. It was suggested and scoped out in general terms as long ago as 1999 ....no action taken.

www.railforums.co.uk

(Answer #79)

I'd even add that, given GB/Dutch geography, the Dutch model isn't necessarily a compromise on the Swiss model - it's a different choice. Where there's a semi 15-minute node there is a genuine trade-off between trunk frequency and all-direction connection, and sacrificing all-direction connection would well be a more economically efficient choice - this is something the Swiss generally don't encounter.

I always find direct comparisons with Switzerland a red herring - superficial comparisons which end up in rabbit holes. Rigidities and difficulties are exaggerated and you end up in a puddle of despair declaring 'this will never happen in the UK'. Switzerland's model isn't really applicable for much of GB. Then there's Switzerland's financial role in Europe, non-participation in WW2, its direct democracy - all are pretty much unique in Europe. EU countries like the Netherlands offer far more accessible, applicable lessons.

The UK is unfortunately stuck with its pendular politics - it goes through good days and bad days. The pendulum is in a particularly bad position at the moment. There's heightened suspicion of anything metropolitan or suspected to be London-centric; then within northern conurbations agglomeration towards city centres is resisted, so the venn diagram of economically sensible and politically popular almost never overlaps. The only place where such overlaps routinely exist is in London - and it's no surprise the London & South East railway network most closely resembles the Dutch one. And just like the 'we should be more like the Swiss' brigade get the wrong end of the stick, when northern politicians go 'if London gets X we should have X too' - it too is often from grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'd even add that, given GB/Dutch geography, the Dutch model isn't necessarily a compromise on the Swiss model - it's a different choice. Where there's a semi 15-minute node there is a genuine trade-off between trunk frequency and all-direction connection, and sacrificing all-direction connection would well be a more economically efficient choice - this is something the Swiss generally don't encounter.

I always find direct comparisons with Switzerland a red herring - superficial comparisons which end up in rabbit holes. Rigidities and difficulties are exaggerated and you end up in a puddle of despair declaring 'this will never happen in the UK'. Switzerland's model isn't really applicable for much of GB. Then there's Switzerland's financial role in Europe, non-participation in WW2, its direct democracy - all are pretty much unique in Europe. EU countries like the Netherlands offer far more accessible, applicable lessons.

The UK is unfortunately stuck with its pendular politics - it goes through good days and bad days. The pendulum is in a particularly bad position at the moment. There's heightened suspicion of anything metropolitan or suspected to be London-centric; then within northern conurbations agglomeration towards city centres is resisted, so the venn diagram of economically sensible and politically popular almost never overlaps. The only place where such overlaps routinely exist is in London - and it's no surprise the London & South East railway network most closely resembles the Dutch one. And just like the 'we should be more like the Swiss' brigade get the wrong end of the stick, when northern politicians go 'if London gets X we should have X too' - it too is often from grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

The Swiss are not absolute slaves to their own systen either. The Zurich S-Bahn runs on a half-hourly timetable mostly, and most lines run via Zurich HB. Of course they did not build another 16 platform S-Bahn station there and have trains stop for 10-15 minutes. So connections are not perfect for each and every S-Bahn service.

 

[Richard Scott]

Wouldn't you notice a significant improvement in performance if you travelled on Swiss trains regularly after travelling on British trains regularly?

All this is comparing apples and pears. Geography of both countries is totally different, probably more people live in London than in whole of Switzerland.
Switzerland has more space, from my observations, to make improvements.
Yes, it's a good network but I rarely have complaints about UK either. One difference is when it does go wrong Switzerland falls apart badly, UK seems to recover more quickly. Those are my personal observations and don't have figures/data to back it up.