Optimising use of capacity

BrianW · 8 Jul 2026

I've started this thread, prompted by discussion within the thread about XC overcrowding.

Hopefully (!) there is someone/ a team at GBR seeking to maximise the chances of DFT/Treasury funding for rail investment. I take it as likely that HM Treasury is unlikely to change its habits any time soon, and 'spend. spend, spend'. There will always be competition for limited funds; 'the railway' needs to be better able to present cases for investment and 'win' against a background of past and continuing 'failures' (a long list). Also, there are continuing and increasing 'demands' in relation to health and 'social care', education, defence of the realm, ...

The 'XC' thread identifies many constraints, e.g. rolling stock (incl life, suitability and renewals), crewing and training, station and line capacities, freight. Relatively recent attention has been given to 'pinchpoints', e.g. Reading. Staffordshire awaits attention in relation to HS2/ WCML?

Some points, e.g. Birmingham New Street, are unlikely to allow physical expansion at reasonable cost in money and disruption, but maybe an 'outside the box solution' may be worthy of consideration, e.g. tunnel below, transfers to Curzon Street, Moor Street, Snow Hill,

In my opinion, 'the railway' has done well in 'sweating the assets' getting maximum throughput at junctions etc (without routinely threatening disruption by trying too hard), hence I seek 'optimising' rather than 'maximising'.

By how much I wonder has ridership increased, since Beeching? How much more capacity is there, by comparison, in air or motorway travel. Where is 'investment' best directed?

Where are the quick or easy wins?

How to best present a 'winning case' for funding??

RailUK Forums

Trainman40083 · 8 Jul 2026

I would think just in rail, there are many projects that would "turbocharge" capacity allowing for many more trains.

An example, but not an eye catching sexy one, would be Ely. There capacity enhancements would significantly increase the ability to accommodate more container trains. But if the shippers of said containers move from Felixstowe to Thames Gateway, that then moves the capacity problem to North London. I think back in my railway career. Much work on resignalling lines from pit to power station. Both have now gone.

In Manchester there is the possibly conflicting Northern Powerhouse Rail being more urgent than HS2. Both would be good. Locals might prefer the Castlefield corridor (I suspect Trafford Park Freightliner terminal may soon close, well move). We have local stoppers, semi fast, freights and non-stop Intercity services, with different needs. Since COVID, we have seen demand patterns change.

If only we had a crystal ball, to know where to start. Okay, the Government has a computer modelling system.

The Planner · 8 Jul 2026

BrianW said:
Where are the quick or easy wins?

That is too broad a question, quick or easy wins to do what? What are you trying to deliver, is it a specific flow, frequency, passenger or freight?

Torfaen · 8 Jul 2026

Yes - quadrupling Castlefield Corridor, in conjunction with two 400m platforms at Piccadilly. I think that's the quickest and easiest way of getting HS2 capacity to Manchester, with half-length trains able to continue to Leeds via Victoria.

In general. though, I think too much of the UK's transport infrastructure = rail, road and air - is operating too close to 100% capacity too much of the time. We need capacity improvements not just to carry more passengers but to build some resilience into the system.

Trainman40083 · 8 Jul 2026

Torfaen said:
Yes - quadrupling Castlefield Corridor, in conjunction with two 400m platforms at Piccadilly. I think that's the quickest and easiest way of getting HS2 capacity to Manchester, with half-length trains able to continue to Leeds via Victoria.

In general. though, I think too much of the UK's transport infrastructure = rail, road and air - is operating too close to 100% capacity too much of the time. We need capacity improvements not just to carry more passengers but to build some resilience into the system.

Okay, you quadruple the Castlefield corridor. How long would that take? How many buildings would have to be purchased / knocked down. Yes, quickest and easiest, but is that the right solution for the future?.. What will Manchester look like in 2040/2050? Would it just be a sticking plaster, putting off the inevitable? Maybe tunnels under Manchester solve the long term problem. A blank sheet of paper. In the meantime, the number of platforms at Oxford Road get reduced to accommodate longer trains.

Shaw S Hunter · 8 Jul 2026

I'm afraid I'm going to come across as a killjoy, but I can't find any cause for optimism regarding the obvious problems raised by the OP.

The country's economy is in poor health with no signs of improvement any time soon. The pressures on the public purse are only going to get worse and the rail network is unlikely to be considered a higher priority than defence, the NHS, law and order, education and reforming the welfare system without creating a new wave of near destitution. As such I fear that under GBR we will see a new version of BR's infamous "crumbling edge of quality" but the negatives will not be expressed so much in dilapidated trains and stations but rather in endemic overcrowding and unpredictable spates of cancellations. And forget about meaningful reductions in fares!

It is surely inevitable that the major fallout from the HS2 debacle will be another generation of Treasury and DfT civil servants instinctively being anti-rail due to the perception that the railway is hopeless at managing large sums of money. Grand schemes are going to be almost impossible to justify, but railways are a big-ticket item meaning cheap and easy improvements are very hard to find. The only consolation I can find is that the politics of rail closures are still so toxic that reductions in the network are highly unlikely.

quantinghome · 8 Jul 2026

The quickest win in terms of increasing capacity would be purchasing more rolling stock to run longer trains. There are far too many short trains running around the place.

Trainman40083 · 8 Jul 2026

quantinghome said:
The quickest win in terms of increasing capacity would be purchasing more rolling stock to run longer trains. There are far too many short trains running around the place.

More likely to discourage passengers from travelling, by making the experience worse. Sadly. I seriously doubt anyone will buy any rolling stock. Lease maybe, if there is justification. But we shall see what happens with South Eastern, Northern, ScotRail, GWR, South West Trains , Chiltern etc . Maybe even Cross Country.

yorksrob · 8 Jul 2026

Shaw S Hunter said:
It is surely inevitable that the major fallout from the HS2 debacle will be another generation of Treasury and DfT civil servants instinctively being anti-rail due to the perception that the railway is hopeless at managing large sums of money. Grand schemes are going to be almost impossible to justify, but railways are a big-ticket item meaning cheap and easy improvements are very hard to find. The only consolation I can find is that the politics of rail closures are still so toxic that reductions in the network are highly unlikely.

This is precisely why the railway needs to shout about its successes :

Reopenings - the positive narrative the railway industry needs !

There's no doubt that the railway industry has its issues. HS2 is in the news for all the wrong reasons. Fares remain high. The hangover from the Great Western electrification affects investment to this day It seems to me that the railway needs a good positive narrative that can be told to...

www.railforums.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2026 ==

quantinghome said:
The quickest win in terms of increasing capacity would be purchasing more rolling stock to run longer trains. There are far too many short trains running around the place.

Or even not immediately scrapping trains that come off lease.

renegademaster · 8 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
More likely to discourage passengers from travelling, by making the experience worse

How do long trains make the experience worse?

Trainman40083 · 8 Jul 2026

renegademaster said:
How do long trains make the experience worse?

The point I was trying to put across was the DfT are more likely to discourage travel than acquire bigger trains. Just like British Rail did.

quantinghome · 8 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
The point I was trying to put across was the DfT are more likely to discourage travel than acquire bigger trains. Just like British Rail did.

I guess that's why they froze fares then...

We're in a completely different political context compared to the 1980s. So much more investment is going in to railways. Very little is going into roads - the only scheme of any size is the LTC.

The exile · 8 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
More likely to discourage passengers from travelling, by making the experience worse. Sadly. I seriously doubt anyone will buy any rolling stock. Lease maybe, if there is justification. But we shall see what happens with South Eastern, Northern, ScotRail, GWR, South West Trains , Chiltern etc . Maybe even Cross Country.

Why is having longer trains going to make the experience worse? Even leasing enough (or carrying sufficient spare parts on depot) so that short-forms are the absolutely exception in immediate emergency rather than the semi -planned result of "more trains than usual needing repair" day in day out would help, without placing any more strain on the system (which would then be operating what it was supposed to be instead of less).

Sorry - seen I was beaten to it.

cle · 8 Jul 2026

That is definitely the answer. And in a TOC model, removing unused paths or short-formed services and reallocating them to longer formed ones.

In a non-TOC model, it becomes a case of prioritization.

Short-trains - if you look around the country, many platforms are equally short. We should have a minimum of 3 cars in new stock orders - which isn't too lavish. And a rolling programme to extend, if we can't extend wires any more as a civilisation.

BrianW · 8 Jul 2026

The Planner said:
That is too broad a question, quick or easy wins to do what? What are you trying to deliver, is it a specific flow, frequency, passenger or freight?

Thank you. I have no particular priority myself. I am hoping people will contribute their thoughts to what they see as the priorities (esp in a time of constrained funding).

yorksrob · 9 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
The point I was trying to put across was the DfT are more likely to discourage travel than acquire bigger trains. Just like British Rail did.

It's questionable whether BR in the 1980's/90's were actually pricing people off of the railways any more than the current railway. They were if anything, attracting people to the railway with Network Cards, Apex fares etc. It's probably more fair to say that they were starting out on yield management.

It's fair to say that I don't have much faith in the current Government/industry to increase capacity. One only has to look at the experience of the Midland mainline and Southern (the central division TOC, rather than the BR region) in recent years.

What is different is the perverse incentive to get rid of rolling stock as soon as possible due to never ending leasing arrangements on long depreciated trains.

CW2 · 9 Jul 2026

Point of Order:
We need to define whether this discussion is about technical track capacity (i.e. the ability to run a certain number of trains, according to their speed, stopping patterns) OR about seating capacity of passenger trains.

These are two distinctly different - but overlapping - capacity questions, each with their own answers.

Severnia333 · 9 Jul 2026

BrianW said:
I've started this thread, prompted by discussion within the thread about XC overcrowding.

Hopefully (!) there is someone/ a team at GBR seeking to maximise the chances of DFT/Treasury funding for rail investment. I take it as likely that HM Treasury is unlikely to change its habits any time soon, and 'spend. spend, spend'. There will always be competition for limited funds; 'the railway' needs to be better able to present cases for investment and 'win' against a background of past and continuing 'failures' (a long list). Also, there are continuing and increasing 'demands' in relation to health and 'social care', education, defence of the realm, ...

The 'XC' thread identifies many constraints, e.g. rolling stock (incl life, suitability and renewals), crewing and training, station and line capacities, freight. Relatively recent attention has been given to 'pinchpoints', e.g. Reading. Staffordshire awaits attention in relation to HS2/ WCML?

Some points, e.g. Birmingham New Street, are unlikely to allow physical expansion at reasonable cost in money and disruption, but maybe an 'outside the box solution' may be worthy of consideration, e.g. tunnel below, transfers to Curzon Street, Moor Street, Snow Hill,

In my opinion, 'the railway' has done well in 'sweating the assets' getting maximum throughput at junctions etc (without routinely threatening disruption by trying too hard), hence I seek 'optimising' rather than 'maximising'.

By how much I wonder has ridership increased, since Beeching? How much more capacity is there, by comparison, in air or motorway travel. Where is 'investment' best directed?

Where are the quick or easy wins?

How to best present a 'winning case' for funding??

Bordesley Chords and Midland Rail Hub semi answer your New Street example - allows transferring some New Street services to Moor Street (and Snow Hill)

The Planner · 9 Jul 2026

Severnia333 said:
Bordesley Chords and Midland Rail Hub semi answer your New Street example - allows transferring some New Street services to Moor Street (and Snow Hill)

Neither are cheap or quick though.

PartyOperator · 9 Jul 2026

How about building a new station in Birmingham with seven 400m long platforms for... 4tph?

BrianW · 9 Jul 2026

yorksrob said:
It's questionable whether BR in the 1980's/90's were actually pricing people off of the railways any more than the current railway. They were if anything, attracting people to the railway with Network Cards, Apex fares etc. It's probably more fair to say that they were starting out on yield management.

It's fair to say that I don't have much faith in the current Government/industry to increase capacity. One only has to look at the experience of the Midland mainline and Southern (the central division TOC, rather than the BR region) in recent years.

What is different is the perverse incentive to get rid of rolling stock as soon as possible due to never ending leasing arrangements on long depreciated trains.

I tend to agree. ANY proposal will need to show 'bang for the buck' as well as tangible benefits this side of the next General Election

QUOTE="CW2, post: 7854270, member: 78241"]
Point of Order:
We need to define whether this discussion is about technical track capacity (i.e. the ability to run a certain number of trains, according to their speed, stopping patterns) OR about seating capacity of passenger trains.

These are two distinctly different - but overlapping - capacity questions, each with their own answers.
[/QUOTE

BOTH are important. Both will cost hard-to- find money. Which will deliver best 'bang for the buck' and how soon?

Trainman40083 · 9 Jul 2026

BrianW said:
I tend to agree. ANY proposal will need to show 'bang for the buck' as well as tangible benefits this side of the next General Election

QUOTE="CW2, post: 7854270, member: 78241"]
Point of Order:
We need to define whether this discussion is about technical track capacity (i.e. the ability to run a certain number of trains, according to their speed, stopping patterns) OR about seating capacity of passenger trains.

These are two distinctly different - but overlapping - capacity questions, each with their own answers.
[/QUOTE

BOTH are important. Both will cost hard-to- find money. Which will deliver best 'bang for the buck' and how soon?

Yes what has the best cost benefit analysis..

BrianW · 9 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
Yes what has the best cost benefit analysis..

I recognise that thee 'power that be' have recognised shortcomings regarding cost/benefit. it does have the advantage of ending up with Numbers, one of which will be higher or lower than the others, and thus 'the answer' and entirely 'justifiable'. The 'result' does depend on the selected criteria and relative 'weightings' ...

I am hoping to 'tease out' the priorities of Forumites, some of whom have first hand experience of 'where the shoe pinches', if not perhaps of how to best to get attention from the decision-makers, and the 'right' decisions!

Nottingham59 · 9 Jul 2026

By far the most simple and quickest way to build the capacity of the network is for NR to introduce supplementary track access charges at times and places where the network is congested.

This is all covered by section 4.4 of the document:

Management of
Congested Infrastructure
Network Rail’s
Code of Practice
2024

4.4 Supplementary access charges on congested infrastructure
4.4.1 Schedule 3 of the Regulations permits a scarcity charge to be levied for the use of congested infrastructure, where this charge has been set out in the applicable Network Statement.
4.4.2 Implementation of a congested infrastructure (scarcity) charge has been considered for Control Period 7 through ORR’s review of access charges for the 2023 Periodic Review. Network Rail will not levy such a charge for Control Period 7.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Management-of-Congested-Infrastructure-Code-of-Practice-March-2024.pdf

Levying a scarcity charge at busy times of day, and returning the excess income to freight operators by equivalent reductions to track access charges at night, would clear the timetable of daytime freight paths and the capacity of the whole network would increase.

Scarcity charging would also penalise running of short trains through places like Castlefield or into Kings Cross.

CW2 · 9 Jul 2026

Scarcity charging has a lot to commend it from the infrastructure operator's side of the table. However the TOC and local political pushback would be considerable.

From the customer's viewpoint, there is a big difference between two 3-car trains per hour and one 6-car train per hour. The number of seats per hour is unchanged, and capacity is released, but the end user would view it as a service reduction.

Trainman40083 · 9 Jul 2026

I remember the days on energy, when the cost of power for an electric train leaving such as Kings Cross was a lot higher after 16.30 that it was before 16.30. (1990s mind). But back to cost benefit et al... On many reopenings, usage is far higher than expected. How do they get that so wrong?

quantinghome · 9 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
I remember the days on energy, when the cost of power for an electric train leaving such as Kings Cross was a lot higher after 16.30 that it was before 16.30. (1990s mind). But back to cost benefit et al... On many reopenings, usage is far higher than expected. How do they get that so wrong?

1. Predictions are hard, especially about the future!
2. The difference is often attributable to the initial growth phase rather than the long term numbers.
3. Given the years of delays projects often suffer between the predictions made for the business case and the first trains running, the general demand has increased.

zwk500 · 9 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
On many reopenings, usage is far higher than expected. How do they get that so wrong?

Can you point to any evidence for this?

Here's evidence as to why the claims for Ebbw being so pessimistic are rubbish, and that the projected numbers for Borders were within 2%,

Northumberland Line needs greater capacity (lengthened trains and/or higher frequency)

For all the talk of fares being too cheap, the fares align with the fares charged on Metro, where the large car parks at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends, and Northumberland Park are charged at £1.50 per day. It's been very good at doing what it was intended to do- get people out of their cars...

www.railforums.co.uk

Meanwhile here's evidence that Northumberland line was predicted for 1.4m annual journeys, so the actual journeys are slightly outstripping predictions but not by much: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/more-carriages-for-northumberland-line.300519/#post-7735662

And evidence that the short-term ramp-up under-predicted but long-term demand was over-predicted for Okehampton: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...act-evaluation-published.292638/#post-7483519

Dr Day · 9 Jul 2026

If the railway is that far down the political priority list, it will be interesting to see whether the nationalised railways end up with more reallocation of physical or limited financial resources away from some of the more socio-economic basket cases to those likely to generate a better socio-economic return.

Bald Rick · 9 Jul 2026

Trainman40083 said:
On many reopenings, usage is far higher than expected. How do they get that so wrong?

‘They’ gmore ofte;get it right than wrong. And, as ever, you will never see a project promoter issue a press release to say ‘use of our new station is far less than expected’. So if there are new statins / lines without a oress release bout usage, you can buess what has happened…

Optimising use of capacity

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member