Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Bletchleyite]

The model to emulate here isn't Swiss, but Dutch - operate Birmingham New Street with the operational simplicity of Utrecht Centraal. The Dutch principle (at least in the Ranstad area) is simplicity - they don't do try to offer clever everywhere-to-everywhere direct trains - they prioritise simplicity. If a journey is possible in one half hour, then (with few exception) the exact same journey is possible in the opposite half hour. That's what we should have for journeys like Manchester - Bristol.

Except the value of XC is in part direct trains, not from everywhere to everywhere, but from useful places to useful places. Two Manchester-Northamptons really aren't useful compared to a Manchester-Reading and a Manchester-Bristol. There's no reason why these couldn't be half hourly between Manchester and Birmingham, of course.

And the Swiss model does do stuff like where you've got A-B then a split for C and D, you have a direct train A-B-C in one hour and a direct train A-B-D in the other, and a local train B-C and B-D in opposite hours planned to connect. This does work. And the UK has had it before - before the pattern got very messy in the late 2000s/early 2010s, Manchester-Barrow/Windermere was a tidy hourly pattern - every 2 hours Windermere with a shuttle run in between to give hourly on the branch, every 2 hours Barrow with a local train starting at Lancaster in between (as the running time to Barrow and back from Lancaster is roughly twice Windermere and back from Oxenholme).

 

[Killingworth]

You are so lost in the semantics you've missed the context completely. Passengers perceive a frequent service on those corridors. The problem is effective frequency drops off a cliff once an interchange is introduced into a journey, because high frequencies on one side don't interchange well with high frequencies on the other. Every 'clever' direct train you introduce to the system by eroding an otherwise half-hourly takt, the more interchanges you break.

GB timetable is a whisker away from Dutch quality. It just needs a small number of things being treated more systematically and consistently with discipline. The Southern region has largely done it. There are basic things like symmetry. Derby - Sheffield is a classic example - the timetable is asymmetrical.

The model to emulate here isn't Swiss, but Dutch - operate Birmingham New Street with the operational simplicity of Utrecht Centraal. The Dutch principle (at least in the Ranstad area) is simplicity - they don't do try to offer clever everywhere-to-everywhere direct trains - they prioritise simplicity. If a journey is possible in one half hour, then (with few exception) the exact same journey is possible in the opposite half hour. That's what we should have for journeys like Manchester - Bristol.

Yes Swiss all electric railways are good, running along the valley floors where the population is concentrated and cutting through mountains where people are much more widely spread. If only Vincent Raven had been able to pursue his pre-WW1 electrification plans further who knows where we'd be now.

The Dutch do very well too, helped enormously by the flat terrain. Their population density is half as big again as ours and most routes are relatively short, the longest from Den Helder to Maastricht being about 300km running twice a day.

Where we fell down was less Beeching's closure of dozens of uneconomic country branch lines, but removal of parallel tracks, loops, sidings redundant platforms and diversionary routes that would be very helpful today. Then we sold off much of the land adjoining what was left of the railway so it's now built on. Where land was retained old bridges may have been demolished and various signalling assets erected that would obstruct relaying of extra tracks.

So CrossCountry can't make many of the moves we'd like because there aren't enough tracks, signalled platforms, holding loops and sidings or carriages!

More carriages is the easiest part. Sorting out industrial relations to be able to operate them all in service would be very helpful. Signalling regulation is the unseen bit for the public and may need attention alongside new crossovers and/or bilateral working opportunities to make better use of platforms.

Any changes to routes themselves need great care. Despite overcrowding there is no enthusiasm for changing at New Street or elsewhere only to have a long wait for another train that's also overcrowded, very late, or cancelled.

A person who's journey in one direction is inconvenient may not make the journey by train, nor will they make the opposite journey either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More carriages is the easiest part. Sorting out industrial relations to be able to operate them all in service would be very helpful.

It's a real pity ScotRail and Lumo wanted the 222s, else you could have envisaged XC getting all the 22x and just forming single 7 and 8 car sets that would never work in multiple, solving that little issue too.

 

[NCT]

And the Swiss model does do stuff like where you've got A-B then a split for C and D, you have a direct train A-B-C in one hour and a direct train A-B-D in the other, and a local train B-C and B-D in opposite hours planned to connect. This does work. And the UK has had it before - before the pattern got very messy in the late 2000s/early 2010s, Manchester-Barrow/Windermere was a tidy hourly pattern - every 2 hours Windermere with a shuttle run in between to give hourly on the branch, every 2 hours Barrow with a local train starting at Lancaster in between (as the running time to Barrow and back from Lancaster is roughly twice Windermere and back from Oxenholme).

This kind of Swiss model works for places like Zwolle / Bromsgrove. Stations like Birmingham New Street / Utrecht Centraal need metro-like 'operational convenience' to work robustly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This kind of Swiss model works for places like Zwolle / Bromsgrove. Stations like Birmingham New Street / Utrecht Centraal need metro-like 'operational convenience' to work robustly.

I find New St largely works as it is at the moment. There's another thread more specifically about that, but the need is more about eking out added capacity, and for that the easiest way is just to stop running toy town trains and start getting everything bar the local DMUs to a minimum of 200m.

Fundamentally the problem with XC is single Voyagers (coupled with the insanely inefficient interior layout they have, which is why a direct coach-for-coach swap for something like an 810 would even make a big difference, just as it will with the similarly-afflicted 222s on the MML). There wouldn't have been a problem if, as I think some other bidders proposed, they'd gone for 7 or even 6 car 170s instead.

 

[JonathanH]

Two Manchester-Northamptons really aren't useful compared to a Manchester-Reading and a Manchester-Bristol. There's no reason why these couldn't be half hourly between Manchester and Birmingham, of course.

It isn't really an 'of course'. There is a reason why they aren't half hourly between Manchester and Birmingham, which is because the trains they run ahead of from Manchester to Stoke run on a 20 minute gap as part of the 3tph service to London, and the stopper runs in the other part of the hour. That is a function of a two-track route with intermediate stations.

 

[Starmill]

You are so lost in the semantics you've missed the context completely. Passengers perceive a frequent service on those corridors. The problem is effective frequency drops off a cliff once an interchange is introduced into a journey, because high frequencies on one side don't interchange well with high frequencies on the other. Every 'clever' direct train you introduce to the system by eroding an otherwise half-hourly takt, the more interchanges you break.



GB timetable is a whisker away from Dutch quality. It just needs a small number of things being treated more systematically and consistently with discipline. The Southern region has largely done it. There are basic things like symmetry. Derby - Sheffield is a classic example - the timetable is asymmetrical.



The model to emulate here isn't Swiss, but Dutch - operate Birmingham New Street with the operational simplicity of Utrecht Centraal. The Dutch principle (at least in the Ranstad area) is simplicity - they don't do try to offer clever everywhere-to-everywhere direct trains - they prioritise simplicity. If a journey is possible in one half hour, then (with few exception) the exact same journey is possible in the opposite half hour. That's what we should have for journeys like Manchester - Bristol.

The Dutch system works well because their trains are long and offer lots and lots of seats. It prioritises capacity far above journey times and is poly-centric. To emulate it in the UK we'd need over twice the rolling stock we have today (think minimum 11 car on the current Voyager routes) and we'd lose huge amounts of custom by slowing down the high-yeild London market. Yes there would be big benefits to this approach but we are very poorly set up for it.

To make Birmingham New Street work similarly to Utrecht Centraal would be tens of billions of pounds and a significant amount of land in the city centre sold to the railway and get you one single very high capacity station. Now that sounds great to me but sadly it's not very feasible.

The UK lacks a half-hourly takt on almost all major routes because it interacts directly with the freight. The Dutch build a dedicated freight line to and from the major port so that they could avoid having to do that.

 

[NCT]

The Dutch system works well because their trains are long and offer lots and lots of seats. It prioritises capacity far above journey times and is poly-centric. To emulate it in the UK we'd need over twice the rolling stock we have today (think minimum 11 car on the current Voyager routes) and we'd lose huge amounts of custom by slowing down the high-yeild London market. Yes there would be big benefits to this approach but we are very poorly set up for it.

To make Birmingham New Street work similarly to Utrecht Centraal would be tens of billions of pounds and a significant amount of land in the city centre sold to the railway and get you one single very high capacity station. Now that sounds great to me but sadly it's not very feasible.

None of this is relevant whatsoever.

 

[Starmill]

I find New St largely works as it is at the moment.

It's not dreadful of course. But the lifts and escalators are very low capacity and most of the platforms have very limited circulating space. It suffers from shockingly poor air quality. Upstairs is very nice and the new building does very well at interacting with the urban space around it without being crowded.

Unfortunately though it only takes a single cancelled train to turn normal rush hour at platform level into complete pandemonium.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

None of this is relevant whatsoever.

My advice would be that if you're looking to get good engagement on your point, you should try to speak to people slightly more nicely. It's totally your choice, but in my view it will help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't really an 'of course'. There is a reason why they aren't half hourly between Manchester and Birmingham, which is because the trains they run ahead of from Manchester to Stoke run on a 20 minute gap as part of the 3tph service to London, and the stopper runs in the other part of the hour. That is a function of a two-track route with intermediate stations.

I more meant 2tph than precisely half hourly (and between them they do make a usefully spaced 2tph service). I would agree that the 3tph London service is a pain because it breaks a largely 2tph pattern, but there's no fixing that until HS2 2B or whatever that's called this week because the demand is such that dropping to half hourly would mean there was insufficient capacity at many times of day, and there isn't I expect room to squeeze 4 in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2026 ==

It's not dreadful of course. But the lifts and escalators are very low capacity and most of the platforms have very limited circulating space. It suffers from shockingly poor air quality. Upstairs is very nice and the new building does very well at interacting with the urban space around it without being crowded.

But none of those things are a problem because of the service pattern in and of itself. The air quality in particular would be fixed by getting rid of the Voyagers in favour of bi- or tri-modes - yes, there are a few other DMUs knocking about, but the Shrewsbury uses 4C most of the time now, the Hereford is only a 4 car and is a more modern unit that doesn't stink as much and the TfW...well, that could probably do with being bi-mode too! The main problem however is Voyagers.

It is amazing just how many problems on the network would be resolved by sending those absolute abominations for scrap, replaced with a 7 or 8 car modern bi-mode of some kind.

As for the escalators etc, you'd have to totally rebuild the station (which would mean closure for years) to fix that. The rebuild they did was a pragmatic and cost effective one based on re-using an existing car park building, and was probably the best you could really do without digging a massive hole and starting again. And I don't find it's that bad, it's certainly less of an issue than Euston 8-11 gateline in the morning peak.

Unfortunately though it only takes a single cancelled train to turn normal rush hour at platform level into complete pandemonium.

There's not really much fixing that without fully rebuilding the station for wider platforms (but it would mean fewer).

 

[NCT]

My advice would be that if you're looking to get good engagement on your point, you should try to speak to people slightly more nicely. It's totally your choice, but in my view it will help.

I made a logical, neutral point. Niceness or otherwise doesn't come into it. Once again, a non-sequitur from you.

Nobody has proposed slowing British trains down. Freight is a timetabling challenge but that does not necessitate timetable sloppiness. Nobody is proposing doubling the size of New Street. None of this logically follows from a desire to simply tidy up the timetable.

 

[Starmill]

I made a logical, neutral point. Niceness or otherwise doesn't come into it. Once again, a non-sequitur from you.

Nobody has proposed slowing British trains down. Freight is a timetabling challenge but that does not necessitate timetable sloppiness. Nobody is proposing doubling the size of New Street. None of this logically follows from a desire to simply tidy up the timetable.

If you think it's easy to "tidy up the timetable", you can have a go at rewriting the whole thing for us for an hour at Birmingham New Street? I'd love to see your answers to what you allege is mere "sloppiness". Make sure it's TPR compliant

It appears to me that you have not grasped what constraints the current infrastructure has. Network Rail doesn't give rights to a takt either, you get rights to use the infrastructure not rights to a repeating hourly slot. The Dutch model is never going to work at Birmingham New Street, no matter what you do. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[35B]

If you think it's easy to "tidy up the timetable", you can have a go at rewriting the whole thing for us for an hour at Birmingham New Street? I'd love to see your answers to what you allege is mere "sloppiness". Make sure it's TPR compliant

It appears to me that you have not grasped what constraints the current infrastructure has. Network Rail doesn't give rights to a takt either, you get rights to use the infrastructure not rights to a repeating hourly slot. The Dutch model is never going to work at Birmingham New Street, no matter what you do. Sorry if that offends you.

A takt timetable would be an excellent idea. It doesn’t currently exist, and the focus on right time running and making connections work is not present in a way that will support passengers actually being willing to change trains. For longer distance journeys, the lack of capacity on trains is also a major issue - for example, I will always choose a through journey over a change for comfort.

What many of the posts here ignore are the people who actually use the trains, and what they may want. Instead, we have discussion of timetabling that is all focused on production efficiency and ignores passenger comfort or convenience.

Removing some of the shorter distance journeys from XC would help with capacity, but it’s hard to identify which of those stations really aren’t intercity stops - the route is the problem, not the timetable.

That means, fundamentally, the answer needs to lie in capacity. That isn’t cheap and won’t be quick as it will mean more vehicles, probably carrying more seats per vehicle. I’m 51; I doubt I’ll see that in my working lifetime.

 

[FGWHST43009]

A takt timetable would be an excellent idea. It doesn’t currently exist, and the focus on right time running and making connections work is not present in a way that will support passengers actually being willing to change trains. For longer distance journeys, the lack of capacity on trains is also a major issue - for example, I will always choose a through journey over a change for comfort.

What many of the posts here ignore are the people who actually use the trains, and what they may want. Instead, we have discussion of timetabling that is all focused on production efficiency and ignores passenger comfort or convenience.

Removing some of the shorter distance journeys from XC would help with capacity, but it’s hard to identify which of those stations really aren’t intercity stops - the route is the problem, not the timetable.

That means, fundamentally, the answer needs to lie in capacity. That isn’t cheap and won’t be quick as it will mean more vehicles, probably carrying more seats per vehicle. I’m 51; I doubt I’ll see that in my working lifetime.

I agree. As a seasonal CrossCountry user, the main things I would like to see improve are the interior and the journey times. The only good thing about the current interior is the warm lighting which helps on a long journey. Hopefully the refurbishment will keep the warm lighting but it's hard to see if that will happen. The journeys I tend to make are long which is less common, usually Newcastle to/from Bristol Parkway or Cardiff Central. However, on the direct service from Cardiff Central, there have been other passengers making journeys from Cardiff to stations beyond Derby, so it's a useful service even if it's slower than going via Bristol Parkway. As it takes so long, any form of journey time reductions would be welcome, but it's hard to see how that can be achieved without rewriting every other operator's timetable.

For making my journeys faster, the obvious solution would be to go via Doncaster and skip Chesterfield, Burton and Tamworth. Move those stops to the Reading-Newcastle and run that via Leeds. Run an extra Bristol-Leeds-York to compensate for the lost connection to Leeds. Or run Plymouth-Leeds/York, Cardiff-Edinburgh via Bristol Parkway and Reading-Newcastle via Leeds. Or run an hourly multi-stop with a 2-hourly express. However there probably isn't the capacity for this, so we're back to square one.

 

[Starmill]

A takt timetable would be an excellent idea. It doesn’t currently exist, and the focus on right time running and making connections work is not present in a way that will support passengers actually being willing to change trains. For longer distance journeys, the lack of capacity on trains is also a major issue - for example, I will always choose a through journey over a change for comfort.

What many of the posts here ignore are the people who actually use the trains, and what they may want. Instead, we have discussion of timetabling that is all focused on production efficiency and ignores passenger comfort or convenience.

Removing some of the shorter distance journeys from XC would help with capacity, but it’s hard to identify which of those stations really aren’t intercity stops - the route is the problem, not the timetable.

That means, fundamentally, the answer needs to lie in capacity. That isn’t cheap and won’t be quick as it will mean more vehicles, probably carrying more seats per vehicle. I’m 51; I doubt I’ll see that in my working lifetime.

Indeed. On paper it is a splendid idea, and I absolutely have no disagreement with the benefits of it. It's just that marrying that to our current hodge-podge of infrastructure and slow pace of upgrading is a hercluean task.

 

[NCT]

If you think it's easy to "tidy up the timetable", you can have a go at rewriting the whole thing for us for an hour at Birmingham New Street? I'd love to see your answers to what you allege is mere "sloppiness". Make sure it's TPR compliant

It appears to me that you have not grasped what constraints the current infrastructure has. Network Rail doesn't give rights to a takt either, you get rights to use the infrastructure not rights to a repeating hourly slot. The Dutch model is never going to work at Birmingham New Street, no matter what you do. Sorry if that offends you.

A depressingly Network Rail - esque answer. Network Rail has become this incredibly defensive organisation that spends most of its time defending the status quo. There are a small number of good people but they are operating against a torrent of institutional inertia.

Your last two sentences reveal a basic lack of understanding. British infrastructure utilisation rates - tph on plain line sections with mixed stopping patterns, and platform utilisation rates are incredibly similar to Dutch ones. The Dutch network isn't awash with fancy grade separations either (theirs is somewhat better than ours, but not wildly so). What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks, as long as you make make changes simple, predictable and reliable. At New Street that means splitting it into two independent parts, and operating each part as outer roads for through and inner roads for terminating.

Rotterdam - Arneham requires a change. Eindhoven - Amersfoort requires a change. These cross-Utrecht journeys are incredibly similar to cross-Birmingham ones.

Most Train Service Specifications (TSRs) express service levels in terms of tph (or implied). It's in Network Rail's own interest to organise all the TOC's TSRs into a common symmetry and a takt structure. This means you only need to work one half hour and repeat - it saves work for itself. Even SNCF Reseaux attempts to put TOC requests into a national symmetrical takt, so does Italy's RFI. Yes, there are aspects of the TSR or TOC demands the Network Code does not protect - like half-hourly at departure for combined hourly services (like the hourly fast and slow London - Edinburgh). Network Rail as the infrastructure operator should exercise technical leadership by insisting on symmetry (if the Down wants to depart King's Cross half hourly, the Up can't depart Edinburgh half hourly). Similarly the Network Code doesn't care about departure times, despite TOCs wanting 00/30 departures for their flagship services. Abbeyhill Junction means that the optimum King's Cross departures for the Edinburgh services are xx57/27, not 00/30.

The inertia isn't entirely Network Rail's fault. It had to accommodate silly routings from TOC access requests. There has been weak and chaotic political leadership in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, Network Rail has a remit for long-term strategic planning - simply passively receiving access requests and tinkering the graph isn't fulfilling that strategic remit. Netherland's Prorail publish maps like this to start conversations and guide TOCs and politicians on what is and isn't possible and sensible. Network Rail used to do things like that with the Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs). Network Rail's competence in thought leadership and long-term planning has deteriorated since the RUS days. With DfT TOCs either publicly owned or as management contracts, Network Rail is in that unique position of having a technical helicopter view of the timetable and advising the DfT and its political masters of the technical intricacies. As the predecessor organisation of GBR, Network Rail is demonstrating a complete lack of readiness to step up.

 

[35B]

A depressingly Network Rail - esque answer. Network Rail has become this incredibly defensive organisation that spends most of its time defending the status quo. There are a small number of good people but they are operating against a torrent of institutional inertia.

Your last two sentences reveal a basic lack of understanding. British infrastructure utilisation rates - tph on plain line sections with mixed stopping patterns, and platform utilisation rates are incredibly similar to Dutch ones. The Dutch network isn't awash with fancy grade separations either (theirs is somewhat better than ours, but not wildly so). What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks, as long as you make make changes simple, predictable and reliable. At New Street that means splitting it into two independent parts, and operating each part as outer roads for through and inner roads for terminating.

Rotterdam - Arneham requires a change. Eindhoven - Amersfoort requires a change. These cross-Utrecht journeys are incredibly similar to cross-Birmingham ones.

Most Train Service Specifications (TSRs) express service levels in terms of tph (or implied). It's in Network Rail's own interest to organise all the TOC's TSRs into a common symmetry and a takt structure. This means you only need to work one half hour and repeat - it saves work for itself. Even SNCF Reseaux attempts to put TOC requests into a national symmetrical takt, so does Italy's RFI. Yes, there are aspects of the TSR or TOC demands the Network Code does not protect - like half-hourly at departure for combined hourly services (like the hourly fast and slow London - Edinburgh). Network Rail as the infrastructure operator should exercise technical leadership by insisting on symmetry (if the Down wants to depart King's Cross half hourly, the Up can't depart Edinburgh half hourly). Similarly the Network Code doesn't care about departure times, despite TOCs wanting 00/30 departures for their flagship services. Abbeyhill Junction means that the optimum King's Cross departures for the Edinburgh services are xx57/27, not 00/30.

The inertia isn't entirely Network Rail's fault. It had to accommodate silly routings from TOC access requests. There has been weak and chaotic political leadership in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, Network Rail has a remit for long-term strategic planning - simply passively receiving access requests and tinkering the graph isn't fulfilling that strategic remit. Netherland's Prorail publish maps like this to start conversations and guide TOCs and politicians on what is and isn't possible and sensible. Network Rail used to do things like that with the Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs). Network Rail's competence in thought leadership and long-term planning has deteriorated since the RUS days. With DfT TOCs either publicly owned or as management contracts, Network Rail is in that unique position of having a technical helicopter view of the timetable and advising the DfT and its political masters of the technical intricacies. As the predecessor organisation of GBR, Network Rail is demonstrating a complete lack of readiness to step up.

All true, and yet. I see no sense that the railway is there for the passenger, and that it is the passenger's journey that is paramount. Takt works in Switzerland (I've no experience of Netherlands) because it is planned around journeys, not trains.

 

[NCT]

All true, and yet. I see no sense that the railway is there for the passenger, and that it is the passenger's journey that is paramount. Takt works in Switzerland (I've no experience of Netherlands) because it is planned around journeys, not trains.

Indeed. Attempting to serve journeys exclusively by direct trains is a dead end. Interchanges are the missing ingredient. A network with more direct trains that compromises takt integrity is inferior to one with fewer direct trains that retains its takt integrity.

Southern simplified the West Coastway services by locking Southamptons to Brighton and Portsmouths to Gatwick. Hitherto hourly journey opportunities became half hourly.

 

[JonathanH]

Southern simplified the West Coastway services by locking Southamptons to Brighton and Portsmouths to Gatwick. Hitherto hourly journey opportunities became half hourly.

You can't please everyone though. Travelling from Gatwick to Southampton involves waiting 20 minutes at Barnham, Chichester or Havant, although it could be argued that connections at Barnham between Arun Valley stations and Southampton aren't so bad.

The point is that there will always be some flows with better connections than others. I don't think there is a way all connections at Birmingham across the CrossCountry X could be made perfect.

 

[NCT]

Cheltenham - Derby is flighted 2tph (only usefully 1tph) despite segment frequencies of 3tph and 4tph.

Leeds - Derby is 1tph despite segment frequencies of 2tph and 4tph

Is this serving journeys?

Eindhoven - Zwolle is 2tph with a change at Utrecht.

Rotterdam - Arnhem is 4tph with a change at Utrecht.

Is this serving trains over journeys?

 

[35B]

Cheltenham - Derby is flighted 2tph (only usefully 1tph) despite segment frequencies of 3tph and 4tph.

Leeds - Derby is 1tph despite segment frequencies of 2tph and 4tph

Is this serving journeys?

Eindhoven - Zwolle is 2tph with a change at Utrecht.

Rotterdam - Arnhem is 4tph with a change at Utrecht.

Is this serving trains over journeys?

I’m quite prepared to believe that the Dutch do it better - I’ve never been so can’t meaningfully comment. But taking the places I do know, I completely agree that the Derby services are poor at best, and offer significant room for improvement.

There are however multiple reasons for those failings, which highlight the flaws in the obsessive focus on frequency. The obvious one is that the two XC service groups use different train types, with very different performance characteristics.

Those patterns then flow into the question of how services interact. The Cheltenham to Derby service pattern, and its flaws, won’t be resolved by splitting some services at New St when others (the core XC flow) are by definition through services. If I’m travelling between the two, then I’m likely to prefer the through service over the split service, meaning that capacity is further compressed.

And if you resolve that by breaking all the services at New St, you aren’t doing “takt” but implementing an arbitrary interpretation of capacity driven planning that pushes the burden onto passengers.

If you impose interchange, you have to consider the where, when and how of that interchange with reference to the people who make that journey.

I can’t take seriously any proposals that are based on requiring interchange at New St. The station is saturated and overcrowded, as well being deeply unpleasant to wait in at platform level. With prolonged minimum connection times, it is the definition of a poor place to connect.

The discussion, meanwhile, is based on an abuse of the term “takt”. A takt timetable considers the whole network, and is properly planned. Some segments of regular interval, however neatly planned, is not “takt” but a poor pretence of it.

As others have pointed out, the Swiss system of takt mixes long distance and occasional through trains (DB permitting!) with rigorous regular intervals on core sections, aided by consistent train performance characteristics. Vertical integration allows proper consideration of the practical and commercial implications of train planning, rather than applying arbitrary rules of symmetry as if tablets of stone. I believe that the Dutch also have international traffic so must find ways of blending service patterns within the structure.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

SBB has the luxury and resources to provide a substitute if a late running DB train (all too common) threatens the regular interval service. DB is basically told to go away and terminate at Basel.

The Netherlands does have international trains but they are relatively infrequent - it is only two-hourly at best to Berlin or Frankfurt for example - so not a major issue.

 

[35B]

SBB has the luxury and resources to provide a substitute if a late running DB train (all too common) threatens the regular interval service. DB is basically told to go away and terminate at Basel.

The Netherlands does have international trains but they are relatively infrequent - it is only two-hourly at best to Berlin or Frankfurt for example - so not a major issue.

And the point in both cases is that through trains beyond the system boundary can and do work, rather than the system only permitting trains to operate within it’s boundaries.

 

[Falcon1200]

What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks,

More efficient for the railway certainly but for the passenger? The non-enthusiast rail travellers I know far prefer a through train, no matter how slow, than being forced to change, especially when they have children, luggage, or are elderly.

I can’t take seriously any proposals that are based on requiring interchange at New St.

Same here, separating the station into two effectively independent operations would be grossly inconvenient for passengers.

 

[Trainbike46]

More efficient for the railway certainly but for the passenger? The non-enthusiast rail travellers I know far prefer a through train, no matter how slow, than being forced to change, especially when they have children, luggage, or are elderly.

It is now efficient for passengers - because the timetable is built around connections, normal passengers use them without thinking twice.

 

[Killingworth]

It is now efficient for passengers - because the timetable is built around connections, normal passengers use them without thinking twice.

Normal passengers I meet loathe connections, largely because many don't and even when they should there's constant concern that they won't.

Written on train with 3 minute connection ahead and 2 hour wait if missed!

Not XC.

 

[Trainbike46]

Normal passengers I meet loathe connections, largely because many don't and even when they should there's constant concern that they won't.

Written on train with 3 minute connection ahead and 2 hour wait if missed!

Not XC.

That's a consequence of how the UK has handled them, not a force of nature.

The Netherlands (which is what I was talking about) handles connections differently, which means normal passengers are perfectly happy with them. If the UK handled them similarly, I think the passengers here wouldn't mind using them either.

But that would require significant changes to the way the railway works, including a reassessment of minimum connection times, and making connections a more important factor of timetable planning, for starters.

 

[Starmill]

A depressingly Network Rail - esque answer. Network Rail has become this incredibly defensive organisation that spends most of its time defending the status quo. There are a small number of good people but they are operating against a torrent of institutional inertia.

Your last two sentences reveal a basic lack of understanding. British infrastructure utilisation rates - tph on plain line sections with mixed stopping patterns, and platform utilisation rates are incredibly similar to Dutch ones. The Dutch network isn't awash with fancy grade separations either (theirs is somewhat better than ours, but not wildly so). What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks, as long as you make make changes simple, predictable and reliable. At New Street that means splitting it into two independent parts, and operating each part as outer roads for through and inner roads for terminating.

Rotterdam - Arneham requires a change. Eindhoven - Amersfoort requires a change. These cross-Utrecht journeys are incredibly similar to cross-Birmingham ones.

Most Train Service Specifications (TSRs) express service levels in terms of tph (or implied). It's in Network Rail's own interest to organise all the TOC's TSRs into a common symmetry and a takt structure. This means you only need to work one half hour and repeat - it saves work for itself. Even SNCF Reseaux attempts to put TOC requests into a national symmetrical takt, so does Italy's RFI. Yes, there are aspects of the TSR or TOC demands the Network Code does not protect - like half-hourly at departure for combined hourly services (like the hourly fast and slow London - Edinburgh). Network Rail as the infrastructure operator should exercise technical leadership by insisting on symmetry (if the Down wants to depart King's Cross half hourly, the Up can't depart Edinburgh half hourly). Similarly the Network Code doesn't care about departure times, despite TOCs wanting 00/30 departures for their flagship services. Abbeyhill Junction means that the optimum King's Cross departures for the Edinburgh services are xx57/27, not 00/30.

The inertia isn't entirely Network Rail's fault. It had to accommodate silly routings from TOC access requests. There has been weak and chaotic political leadership in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, Network Rail has a remit for long-term strategic planning - simply passively receiving access requests and tinkering the graph isn't fulfilling that strategic remit. Netherland's Prorail publish maps like this to start conversations and guide TOCs and politicians on what is and isn't possible and sensible. Network Rail used to do things like that with the Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs). Network Rail's competence in thought leadership and long-term planning has deteriorated since the RUS days. With DfT TOCs either publicly owned or as management contracts, Network Rail is in that unique position of having a technical helicopter view of the timetable and advising the DfT and its political masters of the technical intricacies. As the predecessor organisation of GBR, Network Rail is demonstrating a complete lack of readiness to step up.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CarrotPie]

A depressingly Network Rail - esque answer. Network Rail has become this incredibly defensive organisation that spends most of its time defending the status quo. There are a small number of good people but they are operating against a torrent of institutional inertia.

Your last two sentences reveal a basic lack of understanding. British infrastructure utilisation rates - tph on plain line sections with mixed stopping patterns, and platform utilisation rates are incredibly similar to Dutch ones. The Dutch network isn't awash with fancy grade separations either (theirs is somewhat better than ours, but not wildly so). What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks, as long as you make make changes simple, predictable and reliable. At New Street that means splitting it into two independent parts, and operating each part as outer roads for through and inner roads for terminating.

Rotterdam - Arneham requires a change. Eindhoven - Amersfoort requires a change. These cross-Utrecht journeys are incredibly similar to cross-Birmingham ones.

Most Train Service Specifications (TSRs) express service levels in terms of tph (or implied). It's in Network Rail's own interest to organise all the TOC's TSRs into a common symmetry and a takt structure. This means you only need to work one half hour and repeat - it saves work for itself. Even SNCF Reseaux attempts to put TOC requests into a national symmetrical takt, so does Italy's RFI. Yes, there are aspects of the TSR or TOC demands the Network Code does not protect - like half-hourly at departure for combined hourly services (like the hourly fast and slow London - Edinburgh). Network Rail as the infrastructure operator should exercise technical leadership by insisting on symmetry (if the Down wants to depart King's Cross half hourly, the Up can't depart Edinburgh half hourly). Similarly the Network Code doesn't care about departure times, despite TOCs wanting 00/30 departures for their flagship services. Abbeyhill Junction means that the optimum King's Cross departures for the Edinburgh services are xx57/27, not 00/30.

The inertia isn't entirely Network Rail's fault. It had to accommodate silly routings from TOC access requests. There has been weak and chaotic political leadership in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, Network Rail has a remit for long-term strategic planning - simply passively receiving access requests and tinkering the graph isn't fulfilling that strategic remit. Netherland's Prorail publish maps like this to start conversations and guide TOCs and politicians on what is and isn't possible and sensible. Network Rail used to do things like that with the Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs). Network Rail's competence in thought leadership and long-term planning has deteriorated since the RUS days. With DfT TOCs either publicly owned or as management contracts, Network Rail is in that unique position of having a technical helicopter view of the timetable and advising the DfT and its political masters of the technical intricacies. As the predecessor organisation of GBR, Network Rail is demonstrating a complete lack of readiness to step up.

Some very good points. If certain parts of the network want to create a regional takt, it can be done - but it needs NR and all the appropriate TOCs (and FOCs!) to come together to make it work.

Normal passengers I meet loathe connections, largely because many don't and even when they should there's constant concern that they won't.

Written on train with 3 minute connection ahead and 2 hour wait if missed!

Not XC.

Responsibility for connections needs to be taken by someone. I agree that this is difficult in the current fragmented railway, but hopefully GBR will make this possible. Connections are not just a bit of dead time in between a passenger being on two trains, but an opportunity to make that journey better. If it's easy and short to get from train A to train B, preferably under cover and maybe with toilets and a coffee shop at the station, people are more likely to tolerate connections. Ditto if trains would actually wait for each other and passengers were informed that they could rely on this.

 

[35B]

That's a consequence of how the UK has handled them, not a force of nature.

The Netherlands (which is what I was talking about) handles connections differently, which means normal passengers are perfectly happy with them. If the UK handled them similarly, I think the passengers here wouldn't mind using them either.

But that would require significant changes to the way the railway works, including a reassessment of minimum connection times, and making connections a more important factor of timetable planning, for starters.

Absolutely. Which also requires some humility from those advocating this approach to recognise where existing customers are coming from, and what their reactions may be. The example of the reactions to making flows through London Bridge either to Cannon Street or to Charing Cross illustrates this well.

This would be a change. As with many such changes, the losers will be a clear group and able to focus their protests. The winners, who should be a larger group if the plan is any good, will be more diffuse while stories of lost opportunity are much less politically effective.