Annual All-Lines Pass: could it ever work?

[Bald Rick]

Is there any specific evidence of how much of DB's woeful performance can actually be attributed to the increased loadings since D-Ticket, or the EUR9 ticket before it? They themselves have stated that inadequate renewal spending over recent decades has contributed to the problems, same for multi-system rolling stock issues.

I havent seen any direct evidence.

What I have seen is:

1) German rail managers saying this
2) specific evidence in this country of punctuality worsening in an inverse relationship to busy-ness of the network
3) specific evidence in this country of restricted funding causing an increase in asset failures, train failures, response time to any failures, and crew availability.

Imagine 8 carriage crowd busters on some of these !

But you could have 8 carriage crowd busters now on the busiest routes in the north west … if the platforms were long enough. Which they arent. It’s not an electrification thing.

 

[yorksrob]

But you could have 8 carriage crowd busters now on the busiest routes in the north west … if the platforms were long enough. Which they arent. It’s not an electrification thing.

The question is then, what's stopping them. The Hallam line received short extensions just before the pandemic, so it is possible. A modular solution should be even easier/cheaper.

We seem to be stuck in a loop where we can't have sensible fares because our short trains will be flooded, yet even where the wires are in place and the rolling stock's available, but we still can't manage the longer trains.

 

[HSTEd]

The question is then, what's stopping them. The Hallam line received short extensions just before the pandemic, so it is possible. A modular solution should be even easier/cheaper.

In the Manchester area the issue will be Oxford Road railway station, two of its five platforms are only good for 105m and I think there is only one 8-car platform at all.

 

[yorksrob]

In the Manchester area the issue will be Oxford Road railway station, two of its five platforms are only good for 105m and I think there is only one 8-car platform at all.

Without total remodelling, I wonder if selective door opening would be a workaround ? From my experience, Piccadilly seems to be the bigger destination.

Most of the services seem to be concentrated on the longer through platforms anyway.

That aside, the unelectrified lines are still several steps behind the electrified north west in terms of achieving 8 carriage crowd busters.

Imagine the capacity uplift if all trains on the trans pennine core and Calder valley were eight carriages !

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the Manchester area the issue will be Oxford Road railway station, two of its five platforms are only good for 105m and I think there is only one 8-car platform at all.

Plenty of services are shorter than 105m, though - 4 x 20m is a very typical length for DMU services. So there is scope for extension.

And if those two platforms happen to be 1 (which is basically disused due to the lack of a lift) and 5 (which is used by only specific services) you could go a bit longer.

You could also remove the Oxford Road stop from some services - in particular the TPE Scotland service never called there when it was an XC service run using 7-car HST formations. Longer trains on that service would be more important than the Oxford Road call, as at present they show "sold out" rather often. To me the 7-car 807s would be ideal, and I believe they (unlike double 397s) would fit Manchester Airport station.

 

[zwk500]

Without total remodelling, I wonder if selective door opening would be a workaround ? From my experience, Piccadilly seems to be the bigger destination.

Most of the services seem to be concentrated on the longer through platforms anyway.

That aside, the unelectrified lines are still several steps behind the electrified north west in terms of achieving 8 carriage crowd busters.

Imagine the capacity uplift if all trains on the trans pennine core and Calder valley were eight carriages !

Not at Oxford Road, you'd be blocking the points (and signal section) behind the train.

The question is then, what's stopping them.

Given that making existing trains longer is about the quickest win from the railway's point of view (so long as the rolling stock is available...) the answer is usually politics - either NIMBYs or Budgets. There's also a healthy dose of land availability and design standards in there slowing things down, but modular design solutions have been tried and although they bring the costs down a bit they don't help with getting things through the planning process.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2024 ==

Plenty of services are shorter than 105m, though - 4 x 20m is a very typical length for DMU services. So there is scope for extension.

And if those two platforms happen to be 1 (which is basically disused due to the lack of a lift) and 5 (which is used by only specific services) you could go a bit longer.

You could also remove the Oxford Road stop from some services - in particular the TPE Scotland service never called there when it was an XC service run using 7-car HST formations. Longer trains on that service would be more important than the Oxford Road call, as at present they show "sold out" rather often. To me the 7-car 807s would be ideal, and I believe they (unlike double 397s) would fit Manchester Airport station.

Removing the Oxford Road stop is likely to cause more problems than it solves, as trains will need to be held back outside the station until there is a clean run for the full train to avoid stopping in the platform and passengers trying to board. Not easy on a line with trains timed so tightly together.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing the Oxford Road stop is likely to cause more problems than it solves, as trains will need to be held back outside the station until there is a clean run for the full train to avoid stopping in the platform and passengers trying to board. Not easy on a line with trains timed so tightly together.

Send it through P1 (Scotland bound) and P3 (Manchester bound) - P1 is basically disused (as it has no lift) and P3 is hardly used in that direction, so people wouldn't be expecting it there and thus wouldn't be confused by it.

That's if that's really a problem. It wasn't a problem when it used to run like this, and it isn't a problem at Deansgate where trains often get held.

 

[HSTEd]

Plenty of services are shorter than 105m, though - 4 x 20m is a very typical length for DMU services. So there is scope for extension.

And if those two platforms happen to be 1 (which is basically disused due to the lack of a lift) and 5 (which is used by only specific services) you could go a bit longer.

You could also remove the Oxford Road stop from some services - in particular the TPE Scotland service never called there when it was an XC service run using 7-car HST formations. Longer trains on that service would be more important than the Oxford Road call, as at present they show "sold out" rather often. To me the 7-car 807s would be ideal, and I believe they (unlike double 397s) would fit Manchester Airport station.

If you disregard Platform 1 and 5 the length increases to 137m, limited by Platform 3.
So that gets you 6x20m and just shy of 6x23m and 7x20m. Unfortunately a FLIRT comes out 'wasting' half a carriage length, unless it needs two power packs.

I really don't think deleting oxford road calls is a good idea - they always seem to be busy in my anecdotal experience, and loading even more passengers onto 13/14 at Piccadilly probably isn't the best idea in the world.

 

[yorksrob]

Not at Oxford Road, you'd be blocking the points (and signal section) behind the train.

Given that making existing trains longer is about the quickest win from the railway's point of view (so long as the rolling stock is available...) the answer is usually politics - either NIMBYs or Budgets. There's also a healthy dose of land availability and design standards in there slowing things down, but modular design solutions have been tried and although they bring the costs down a bit they don't help with getting things through the planning process.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2024 ==


Removing the Oxford Road stop is likely to cause more problems than it solves, as trains will need to be held back outside the station until there is a clean run for the full train to avoid stopping in the platform and passengers trying to board. Not easy on a line with trains timed so tightly together.

Platform extensions really ought to be permitted development.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2024 ==

If you disregard Platform 1 and 5 the length increases to 137m, limited by Platform 3.
So that gets you 6x20m and just shy of 6x23m and 7x20m. Unfortunately a FLIRT comes out 'wasting' half a carriage length, unless it needs two power packs.

I really don't think deleting oxford road calls is a good idea - they always seem to be busy in my anecdotal experience, and loading even more passengers onto 13/14 at Piccadilly probably isn't the best idea in the world.

I agree, Oxford Road is a handy interchange. Although they ought to find a solution for long trains stopping there !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platform extensions really ought to be permitted development.

There is a plan for Oxford Road's platforms to be extended and it is not likely to be opposed - it's just about money.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a plan for Oxford Road's platforms to be extended and it is not likely to be opposed - it's just about money.

Is this the same as the big remodelling plan that didn't progress, or is it a slimmed down version ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this the same as the big remodelling plan that didn't progress, or is it a slimmed down version ?

Slimmed down

Platform extensions really ought to be permitted development.

They usually are. But when land take is involved, there must be a proper process.

 

[yorksrob]

Slimmed down



They usually are. But when land take is involved, there must be a proper process.

In that case, extending Oxford Road's platforms must be one of the best value enhancements the railway can make.

I get the point about land take, but most platform extensions are along railway land surely.

 

[AM9]

Beyond the existing platforms, the 'land' (i.e. to the outside edge of the viaduct brickwork) is about 1m each side, so not much room for a platform extensions.

 

[yorksrob]

Beyond the existing platforms, the 'land' (i.e. to the outside edge of the viaduct brickwork) is about 1m each side, so not much room for a platform extensions.

I was thinking more about the network in general, however I get that Oxford Road is a restricted location in this respect and would need a fairly bespoke solution !

 

[30907]

The question is then, what's stopping them.

Money.

Platform extensions may not be too expensive*, but you've also got to provide the extra stock, and there isn't that much going spare, certainly with any life left in it.

*You can use SDO of course, but I hope that is only permitted where there's no reasonable alternative - Shipley P2 for example, whereas P1 is slowly getting its extension built.

 

[yorksrob]

Money.

Platform extensions may not be too expensive*, but you've also got to provide the extra stock, and there isn't that much going spare, certainly with any life left in it.

*You can use SDO of course, but I hope that is only permitted where there's no reasonable alternative - Shipley P2 for example, whereas P1 is slowly getting its extension built.

That comes back to my point that we were awash with decent EMU's - oldish but not knackered that could have provided such services. But we didn't carry on with the electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

That comes back to my point that we were awash with decent EMU's - oldish but not knackered that could have provided such services. But we didn't carry on with the electrification.

The electrification has become so expensive that it would pay for a new vehicle for every few hundred metres of track electrified.
It's not at all surprising that government no longer wants to burn money like that.

Buying new self powered trains would almost certainly be cheaper!

 

[Bald Rick]

I get the point about land take, but most platform extensions are along railway land surely.

Most are. But increasingly, where you need them most tend to be in busier, urban areas, where that isnt the case.

 

[yorksrob]

The electrification has become so expensive that it would pay for a new vehicle for every few hundred metres of track electrified.
It's not at all surprising that government no longer wants to burn money like that.

Buying new self powered trains would almost certainly be cheaper!

Which comes back to the need for rolling electrification, where the supply chains, skills and kit are used continuously - rather than setting up from scratch every time.

Most are. But increasingly, where you need them most tend to be in busier, urban areas, where that isnt the case.

Good point.

Platform 17 at Leeds would be an easy win in this respect as the viaduct is the same width beyond the platform.

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if you could create a regional travel pass (regions would have to be smaller than the UK Regions, so maybe more in line with the BBC TV regions - although even then some of them could be made smaller)

For example £40 a month for a card for services within Scottish Boarders an another card for those within South Wales.

Most people would then limit their travel to one or two regions and then PAYG for the rest of their travel.

If people are limiting their travel to one region then they'll pay slightly less than the national proposal, however if they would benefit from travelling across two regions then they would pay more than the proposal. However, £80 a month to give you unlimited travel between (say) Plymouth and Bristol or Portsmouth to Weymouth would feel like very good value for those who travel between such points frequently enough (which may only be a few times a month).

Whilst for those travelling across three regions it would be £120 for a month, which would probably mean less did it, however for some (depending on where family are) it could be worth doing for a month or two within a year which would increase the numbers for whom it was viable. This would however mean that they were paying quite a bit more than the proposal.

 

[JonathanH]

However, £80 a month to give you unlimited travel between (say) Plymouth and Bristol or Portsmouth to Weymouth would feel like very good value for those who travel between such points frequently enough (which may only be a few times a month).

Why is the railway going to give up revenue of £236 for a week's travel between Plymouth and Bristol, which converts to £906 for a month, for a ticket that only brings in £80 a month?

A flexi season is £629.60, for those who only want to make 8 journeys in a 28 day period.

The objective here, as I understand it, is to get people out of cars. Involved in that equation is the complexity of handling the connections at either end of the route, and the additional time and inconvenience that takes. The premise that cost is the only aspect of the decision and that the modal switch will magically happen if the fare is dropped to an uneconomically low level seems unrealistic.

 

[yorksrob]

Why is the railway going to give up revenue of £236 for a week's travel between Plymouth and Bristol, which converts to £906 for a month, for a ticket that only brings in £80 a month?

A flexi season is £629.60, for those who only want to make 8 journeys in a 28 day period.

The objective here, as I understand it, is to get people out of cars. Involved in that equation is the complexity of handling the connections at either end of the route, and the additional time and inconvenience that takes. The premise that cost is the only aspect of the decision and that the modal switch will magically happen if the fare is dropped to an uneconomically low level seems unrealistic.

Always with the "getting people out of cars"

People who don't drive also have a contribution to make to the British economy.

 

[Bevan Price]

Why is the railway going to give up revenue of £236 for a week's travel between Plymouth and Bristol, which converts to £906 for a month, for a ticket that only brings in £80 a month?

A flexi season is £629.60, for those who only want to make 8 journeys in a 28 day period.
cost is the only aspect of the decision and that the modal switch will magically happen if the fare is dropped to an uneconomically low level seems unrealistic.

The question should be "hpw many monthly seasons do they actually sell, and could they sell enough rovers to equal or better the revenue they get now from monthly seadons ?"

 

[JonathanH]

The question should be "hpw many monthly seasons do they actually sell, and could they sell enough rovers to equal or better the revenue they get now from monthly seadons ?"

But that isn't the question. The question should actually be how many return tickets do they sell, and does making the cost of these more accessible result in a overall beneficial outcome from either an economic or an environmental perspective.

 

[The Ham]

But that isn't the question. The question should actually be how many return tickets do they sell, and does making the cost of these more accessible result in a overall beneficial outcome from either an economic or an environmental perspective.

At £49 the numbers had been crunched and gave a subsidy value of £45m - £637and so if the cost was more by being regionally based then the cost would be lower.

One thing to bear in mind is the costs with ticket handling, which would also be reduced.

For example (and this could be controversial) do you need so many ticket offices if the majority of people only need to buy a ticket for long distance travel? A slightly less controversial version of that is so you need to have so many TVM's if regular travellers just bypass them most of the time.

The risk/reward of travelling without a ticket reduces significantly as if the fine is £50 but a month of rail travel is £40 over the course of a year if you get caught 10 times you're worse off (even 9 times and it's not much cheaper).

 

[berneyarms]

Just to add that there are five annual all lines tickets available in the Republic of Ireland:

1) All Iarnród Éireann Services - EUR 4,100
2) All Iarnród Éireann and Dublin City bus services - EUR 4,400
3) All Iarnród Éireann and LUAS services - EUR 4,400
4) All Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann services (including GoAhead Dublin Commuter services)- EUR 4,400
5) CIÉ All Services (Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann, GoAhead Dublin Commuter and Dublin City Bus Services) - EUR 5,200

These are all available to buy under the taxsaver scheme (www.taxsaver.ie) which reduces the cost by up to 52% by reducing your gross income for income tax purposes.

 

[yorksrob]

Just to add that there are five annual all lines tickets available in the Republic of Ireland:

1) All Iarnród Éireann Services - EUR 4,100
2) All Iarnród Éireann and Dublin City bus services - EUR 4,400
3) All Iarnród Éireann and LUAS services - EUR 4,400
4) All Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann services (including GoAhead Dublin Commuter services)- EUR 4,400
5) CIÉ All Services (Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann, GoAhead Dublin Commuter and Dublin City Bus Services) - EUR 5,200

These are all available to buy under the taxsaver scheme (www.taxsaver.ie) which reduces the cost by up to 52% by reducing your gross income for income tax purposes.

€340 a month seems quite steep. I can't imagine a ticket at that sort of price being popular here.

I think something pitched a bit higher than Germany's €49 could be transformative, rather than niche.

 

[AlastairFraser]

€340 a month seems quite steep. I can't imagine a ticket at that sort of price being popular here.

I think something pitched a bit higher than Germany's €49 could be transformative, rather than niche.

Tbf I think it's quite rare that you'd need to use a whole variety of IE services on a regular basis.

 

[yorksrob]

Tbf I think it's quite rare that you'd need to use a whole variety of IE services on a regular basis.

It could be handy for some regular business travellers I suppose.

At that price you'd want it to include NIR as well.