Not displaying the destination isn't a disability access issue. It creates a problem for all passengers. Except when a RRB has been arranged at short notice, it's hard to see the absence of at least a board showing the destination as anything but laziness by the operator.
Which operator:
Then someone, I suggest the rail operator hiring the coach, needs to get a grip and make sure the job is done properly.
My understanding of this is no - and that any LNER services running into St Pancras would largely be at the expense of EMR.
Likewise for Chiltern, if the WCML is closed and they are strengthening London - Birmingham trains, they end up having to run a replacement bus for the likes of Kings Sutton, Hatton & Lapworth as the longer trains don't fit at those stations and the 165/168s lack SDO. They also make stops south of Bicester as pick up only heading towards Birmingham (and I presume set down only heading to London) to cater for the higher demand for Birmingham passengers at the expense of their regular passengers of High Wycombe/Gerrard Cross etc who end up put on a local stopper.
In what way could you not run 4tph (IC) from 3 platforms, if all services are full length?
It's not difficult in the slightest. The TOC hiring the RRB operator requires in the contrct for it to be provided. How the bus operator does that is their problem. You don't expect us to put up with poor service just to take solving minor problems off the bus operator's hands, do you?
It seems to be generally accepted that the Midlands Main Line is ‘full’ (at least Monday-Saturday) south of Bedford with 6 EMR services plus Thameslink partially on the Fast Lines including crossing moves.The last thing you want with ‘tight’ platforming and some two-train sharing with 5-car sets is late presentation.
My response was more based on trying to lengthen things based upon the current timetable (and trying to divert LNER services on top) - the timetable at the minute is too dependent on stacking things on top of each other. The platform occupation graph would make for interesting reading.
Non stop London-Selby
I’m with @TUC on this - it’s for the railway operator to require it, and then they and the bus operator can work out the details. If the requirement isn’t there, it won’t happen.
The core question surely has to be 'what will best meet the customer's needs?'
Agreed. That's why I don't think adding loads of extra services is realistic. However, it very much is possible to run the existing pattern (6 tph EMR services) at full length using the existing 4 platforms. The entire connect service runs from platform 1 in the current timetable, so leaving that as-is, that gives 3 platforms for 4 tph.
It would be preferable for the LNER units to continue north of Sheffield to either Doncaster or Leeds, to avoid another change of train for their passengers. However, this requires a timetable where the LNER units only go to Sheffield without interworking to Nottingham. On these timings that isn't achievable with two platforms unless the Nottinghams have an unrealistic 9min turnaround. Possibly some Sheffield and Nottingham paths could be swapped, or maybe the Sheffield arrivals could sit outside the station for about 5min (south of where Thameslink vacates the Fasts) until the previous Sheffield departure has cleared the platform.
How many 9-car 800s could be spared for a MML operation? Through services from <southern location> to Inverness and Aberdeen would presumably need to be maintained which must occupy a fair number of them. The 5-car 800s aren't really useful in Scotland or on the MML so can be disregarded. It seems that once the Scottish services are accounted for, and any that are needed for maintenance, then there aren't actually that many 800s available for the MML to go far beyond Sheffield.
On a typical Saturday (assuming a weekend block), 3/10 of the nine-car 800s don't touch either of Inverness or Aberdeen. Of course if you were running down the MML you'd be terminating rather short of London on the usual, so its possible you could spare another when rejigging diagrams.
Presumably you would be fine if you were just compensated for the disrupted part. So if you were doing Euston Glasgow and the RRB was Preston Lancaster, that is the only bit you pay the coach equivalent for?
Similar to what Avanti did for the S&C diversions, there may be scope to curtail some of the normal 9-car bi-mode workings further north to get as many of them as possible running between St Pancras and Doncaster or Leeds, even if that means some passengers have to change at unexpected places? For example, if 10-car isn't allowed north of Edinburgh, could the Aberdeen and Inverness services split there? Another constraint is that if a LNER set takes a Sheffield path and continues beyond, another one has to come south at the right time to pick up the return working.
Yes, that seems fair. Perhaps tricky to figure out, mind, given the complexity of british railway ticketing...
It would be nice if the Sheffield services were extended to Leeds or Doncaster, yes. That would require a change in the timetable though, and I couldn't say if that would be feasible. However, I don't think that would require keeping the LNER trains away from Nottingham - you could have EMR trains be part of the services going up to Leeds/Doncaster as well.
Firstly, this leads to the question, how many of those Inverness/Aberdeen services could be run by a 5-car instead, especially when the service doesn't run through to London.
From experience, few to none. Midweek in the winter, you might get away with it, but even then First Class loadings alone north of Newcastle easily fill most of the accommodation available on a nine-car.
