Should Two Track Sections in Urban Areas be Timetabled as Stoppers?

[Topological]

With the talk about Birmingham New Street capacity, and the large number of routes running into Birmingham that are only 2-track, there is a wider question about how these lines should be scheduled.

More "stops" means more capacity. Even if the "fast" trains do not call in the public timetable, scheduling them as if they do means the fast trains do not eat paths through the section.

However, more stops means longer journey times and this may not be desirable in every case.

My opinion is that for shortish sections, like Wolverhampton to Birmingham, or Manchester to Manchester Airport, there are bigger net benefits for having more local trains and that slowing the "fast" trains down is a price worth paying. In Manchester, Castlefield is another area where all trains should be planned as if calling at Deansgate (and Salford Central when/if the additional platforms are opened). Thameslink works well because it is all stops, despite the "fast" trains having many fewer stops outside the core.

 

[Harpo]

So for example Shenfield to Colchester, everything including Norwich becomes all shacks? Mm. Thats a ‘no’ then.

 

[Topological]

So for example Shenfield to Colchester, everything including Norwich becomes all shacks? Mm. Thats a ‘no’ then.

Is that a particularly busy urban corridor? I do not wish to do East Anglia a disservice, but is there not only 2 tph of an "InterCity" type through there? It is a while since I caught a Liverpool Street to Southend, but it felt like that stopped more.

 

[Kite159]

Is that a particularly busy urban corridor? I do not wish to do East Anglia a disservice, but is there not only 2 tph of an "InterCity" type through there? It is a while since I caught a Liverpool Street to Southend, but it felt like that stopped more.

The Southend branch breaks away from the mainline at Shenfield where pretty much all the trains towards Southend stop at every station.

As for the main line, it might only have 2tph to Norwich, but it has a mix of other services with varying calling patterns owing to the demand from the various stations

 

[stevieinselby]

My opinion is that for shortish sections, like Wolverhampton to Birmingham, or Manchester to Manchester Airport, there are bigger net benefits for having more local trains and that slowing the "fast" trains down is a price worth paying. In Manchester, Castlefield is another area where all trains should be planned as if calling at Deansgate (and Salford Central when/if the additional platforms are opened). Thameslink works well because it is all stops, despite the "fast" trains having many fewer stops outside the core.

It depends how short the short sections are.
Thameslink works well because all trains call at all stations through central London. As soon as you get north of St Pancras or south of London Bridge, they go back to having fast and slow services again.
That's very different from lines like Birmingham to Wolverhampton or Manchester to the Airport, where you're looking at trains calling at loads of suburban stations. Multiple city centre stations may make sense on regional and longer-distance services, but a load of suburban stations don't.
Or if you're going to have intercity trains chugging along at 30mph so that they fit into a stopper's path, the question then is how many passengers that is going to inconvenience and by how much. Intercity trains generally carry a lot more passengers than these suburban services, which is why they are usually prioritised – a Pendolino with 500 passengers on is more important than a local train with maybe a third of that ridership.

 

[zwk500]

To take your example of Birmingham to Wolverhampton, no. The XC and Avanti services are on multi-hour journeys, and have door layouts with long dwells. They do not need to be slowed down by stopping at every street corner in the West Midlands. Let's max out train lengths first. The answer is to build 4 tracks at points on that section, but good luck getting the corridor for it!
Worth noting that the planning headway between Galton Jn and Wolverhampton is 3 for a Non-stop and 4 for a stopping train. This means that in order to maximise trains on this section, NO trains should be making intermediate stops, not ALL. Max hypothetical capacity for all-non-stop is 20 trains an hour, for all all-stoppers, is 15tph.

Also in answer to Castlefield , stopping trains at Deansgate would reduce capacity because of the time required for trains to open doors and get people on and off. Oxford Road is able to handle the throughput on two tracks, and Piccadilly has mid-platform signals to reduce the headway. Thameslink only manages it's capacity with 12-car trains with mid-platform signals (and extra ETCS blocks) as well.

For reference, the planning headway on Castlefield is 2 minutes between passenger trains, although if there are 2 successive trains travelling at 2 minutes headway the next movement must be at 3 minutes headway. The minimum dwell time at Deansgate is 1 minute and the platform reoccupation is 2, so it is most efficient for only every 3rd passenger train to stop there (as it must be at a 3 minute headway anyway).

 

[The Pelican]

No, I've never been sure why some people on Skyscrapercity thought this was a good idea. Rather than think "stop everything at all existing stations", the better idea would be "have everything follow a consistent stopping pattern"- which would probably involve closing or almost closing lots of less popular stations, Bordesley style. Someone here discussed a BR manager who thought trains needed to have a commercial speed of 60mph (to compete with motorways), and it's impressive how many non-125mph corners of the network manage to achive that kind of speed- the marches line is a good example. But these speeds involve not stopping the faster trains too much.

The main thing to look at is what frequencies are actually possible with the infrastructure- Merseyrail with exclusive use of it's lines and exclusive tracks through Liverpool city center often only manages 4tph to the ends, while the Birmingham Cross City line, sharing with cross country on the southern half and having to run through New Street managed 6tph.

If we think of a typical suburban section of a longer railway in the UK, it should probably aim at 2tph stopping and 2tph fast with no extra infrastructure, then gradually upgrade infrasfructure until it can accomodate 4tph stopping and 4tph fast, with the fasts stopping at one or two major town centres or junctions between the centre and the edge. Probably also needs extra city center terminus platforms (or through-linking of suburban services on either side) in many cases.

 

[JonathanH]

Or if you're going to have intercity trains chugging along at 30mph so that they fit into a stopper's path, the question then is how many passengers that is going to inconvenience and by how much. Intercity trains generally carry a lot more passengers than these suburban services, which is why they are usually prioritised – a Pendolino with 500 passengers on is more important than a local train with maybe a third of that ridership.

Is the premise here that running the intercity trains at 30mph on the Coventry to Wolverhampton corridor (for example) such that it would be possible to run a 6tph stopping service, and over time the local trains would also be carrying 500 passengers as well?

It doesn't sound likely, because at the moment the flows between the principal stations exceed the flows for the local ones, and it a big leap to imagine that passenger numbers would increase.

 

[stevieinselby]

The main thing to look at is what frequencies are actually possible with the infrastructure- Merseyrail with exclusive use of it's lines and exclusive tracks through Liverpool city center often only manages 4tph to the ends, while the Birmingham Cross City line, sharing with cross country on the southern half and having to run through New Street managed 6tph.

Not exactly a like-for-like comparison. Merseyrail manages 14tph on the Wirral Line and 12tph on the Northern Line. The fact that they then fan out to multiple termini means that you're not going to get high frequencies to any one terminus. Is the frequency limited by track capacity or because there aren't enough passengers to justify a higher frequency? If track capacity is the limit, it seems more likely that the numerous flat crossings, single line sections or terminals, and the need to accommodate 8tph terminating and 4tph through in 2 bi-di platforms at Central and to accommodate Borderlands trains terminating in through platforms at Bidston are relevant considerations.

 

[zwk500]

Is the premise here that running the intercity trains at 30mph on the Coventry to Wolverhampton corridor (for example) such that it would be possible to run a 6tph stopping service, and over time the local trains would also be carrying 500 passengers as well?

If you ran Coventry to Wolverhampton at 30mph the Pendo will no longer be carrying the people it would have been.

For reference, here's a comparison of the individual travel times
Coventry-International: Avanti: 9 mins, LNR Euston-Birmingham via Northampton: 18 mins
International - New Street: Avanti: 10 mins, WMT Chase Line service via Bescot: 18 mins
New Street - Sandwell &Dudley: Avanti: 7 mins, WMT Walsall-Wolves: 11 mins,
Sandwell & Dudley - Wolves: Avanti: 12 mins, WMT Walsall-Wolves: 24 14 Mins

Dwells at Stations named are excluded.

But we can see the total travel time of an Avanti (38 mins) is nearly half less than two-thirds (53% 62%) of the all-stations time (71 61 mins). Extending the journey time would be a serious detriment to everybody from places beyond the West Midlands travelling to or through the conurbation, and those with easy access to the principal stations called at by the fast train, to benefit only the people within the suburban West Midlands. This does not feel like a good trade-off. Whereas building sections of 4-track to allow the fast trains to stay fast but increasing local traffic does feel like a good investment.

And none of this even considers Staff and Unit usage.

 

[30907]

Sandwell & Dudley - Wolves: Avanti: 12 mins, WMT Walsall-Wolves: 24 Mins

14min in fact - but your general point still stands.

 

[The exile]

Had the Bristol - London superfasts come to fruition, this would have been a good way of squeezing more capacity out of Bristol - Bathampton Jn when needed. The slowing of schedules for the London services would only affect journeys between Chippenham/ Bath and Bristol and there would be compensated for by the increase in frequency (without which it wouldn’t be necessary).

 

[TheGrew]

I think there is a reasonable argument for slowing down the Rugby-New Street Corridor, but only once HS2 is open, as it effectively quad-tracks much of the section. Likewise with the Birmingham-Stafford section if HS2 Phase 2a (at least!) is built.
My gut is that in a post-HS2 world, Cross Country won't be as appealing for some of the flows it is currently used for.

 

[zwk500]

14min in fact - but your general point still stands.

Now edited

I think there is a reasonable argument for slowing down the Rugby-New Street Corridor, but only once HS2 is open, as it effectively quad-tracks much of the section. Likewise with the Birmingham-Stafford section if HS2 Phase 2a (at least!) is built.
My gut is that in a post-HS2 world, Cross Country won't be as appealing for some of the flows it is currently used for.

There's an argument for Birmingham-Wolves because the journeys towards Manchester will be from further afield, but there's significant flows from between places around MK like Leighton Buzzard and Northampton to Birmingham that slowing down would be a major negative impact.

Also Birmingham International provides a useful point to terminate inner stoppers and that fits in to the timetable structure quite nicely. I think for Rugby-Birmingham International the best option post Hs2 will be if most trains stop at most stations, but split across them all so that local-to-local services aren't as frequent but each individual station has a consistent service to Coventry and Birmingham.

 

[Severnia333]

Had the Bristol - London superfasts come to fruition, this would have been a good way of squeezing more capacity out of Bristol - Bathampton Jn when needed. The slowing of schedules for the London services would only affect journeys between Chippenham/ Bath and Bristol and there would be compensated for by the increase in frequency (without which it wouldn’t be necessary).

What was the plan for these? Paddington-Reading-Parkway-Temple Meads?

 

[Kite159]

What was the plan for these? Paddington-Reading-Parkway-Temple Meads?

The Bristol 'Fast' services which got axed during Covid?

Pretty sure they were Paddington - Parkway - Temple Meads, with some extensions towards Somerset

 

[Magdalia]

There is a route that already does this: Copper Mill Junction to Broxbourne. It has peak 12tph on a 2 track railway including 4tph to Stansted Airport and 4tph to Cambridge, even though there are lots of intermediate stations.

This is done by having no non-stop trains and no all stations trains, the intermediate stations are served by stops distributed across all services. In the evening peak the Stansted trains stop at Cheshunt, the Cambridge trains stop at Northumberland Park and Broxbourne. Ponders End, Brimsdown, Enfield Lock and Waltham Cross only get 2tph but the first two on different trains from the last two, which only have a service from Stratford, not Liverpool Street. Some intermediate journeys are effectively impossible, such as Northumberland Park to Ponders End or Brimsdown to Enfield Lock.

 

[Instinct04]

There is a route that already does this: Copper Mill Junction to Broxbourne. It has peak 12tph on a 2 track railway including 4tph to Stansted Airport and 4tph to Cambridge, even though there are lots of intermediate stations.

This is done by having no non-stop trains and no all stations trains, the intermediate stations are served by stops distributed across all services. In the evening peak the Stansted trains stop at Cheshunt, the Cambridge trains stop at Northumberland Park and Broxbourne. Ponders End, Brimsdown, Enfield Lock and Waltham Cross only get 2tph but the first two on different trains from the last two, which only have a service from Stratford, not Liverpool Street. Some intermediate journeys are effectively impossible, such as Northumberland Park to Ponders End or Brimsdown to Enfield Lock.

I’m afraid you have got this all wrong.

The peak stopping pattern is as follows:

The 4tph Stansted trains stop at Cheshunt, then 2tph Cambridge trains stop at Waltham Cross and the other 2tph stop at Brimsdown; all 4 serve Broxbourne. They all skip Cheshunt.

The 2tph Liverpool Street-Hertford East trains call at Ponders End, Brimsdown, Enfield Lock and Cheshunt. They skip Northumberland Park, Meridian Water and Waltham Cross.

The 2tph Stratford-Hertford East/Bishops Stortford call at Northumberland Park/Meridian Water (they alternate with each other by each having 1tph) Enfield Lock, Waltham Cross and Cheshunt. They skip Ponders End and Brimsdown.

Then the 2tph Stratford—Meridian Water shuttle calls at Northumberland Park and Meridian Water.

Northumberland Park to Ponders End is not possible on a single train, yes. But Brimsdown to Enfield Lock is possible on a single train all day, everyday. (Including peak times.)

 

[Magdalia]

I’m afraid you have got this all wrong.

I think I can see what I did there. I took stops from RTT but unfortunately chose tomorrow, failing to notice the STP changes because Tottenham are at home!

What it shows is that the timetable is so tight that STP stops at Northumberland Park for football can only be done by taking out stops at other stations.

 

[cle]

The Bristol 'Fast' services which got axed during Covid?

Pretty sure they were Paddington - Parkway - Temple Meads, with some extensions towards Somerset

Yes I believe so. I don’t think they called at Reading. But extensions to Exeter were mentioned in lieu of some XC extensions.

And of course, reopening the second train shed.

 

[Instinct04]

I think I can see what I did there. I took stops from RTT but unfortunately chose tomorrow, failing to notice the STP changes because Tottenham are at home!

What it shows is that the timetable is so tight that STP stops at Northumberland Park for football can only be done by taking out stops at other stations.

Ive just seen this. Everything is 2tph Cheshunt and Broxbourne, which get eight.

This is going to annoy a lot of people..

Enfield lock is rather surprising. At 1.459 million entries and exits last year, you’d think it’d get a little priority too instead of a measly 2tph (during the peaks too)

Of course the Stansted trains run through without any impact, like always…

 

[blimmo]

Is the premise here that running the intercity trains at 30mph on the Coventry to Wolverhampton corridor (for example) such that it would be possible to run a 6tph stopping service, and over time the local trains would also be carrying 500 passengers as well?

It doesn't sound likely, because at the moment the flows between the principal stations exceed the flows for the local ones, and it a big leap to imagine that passenger numbers would increase.

Taking the Coventry-Birmingham International section: I agree with this analysis... unless there was a significant development/house building program around these intermediate stations. At the moment many of these stations have incredibly poor surrounding land use that would not support an enhanced service (I'm honestly surprised Tile Hill and Canley get such a good service at the moment since they're mostly surrounded by industrial uses with no direct pedestrian access or literally fields).

Ofc I don't hold out much hope for the land use to change any time soon since most of the land surrounding these stations is "green belt".