Chiltern in early 2010s - very generous service provision

[nw1]

One thing I've always wondered about (and I noticed this when travelling to High Wycombe in 2011) is the very generous level of off-peak service provision on the main line in the early 2010s. Now I'm not someone who supports service cuts, and prefers to see service improvements, but even still, the autumn 2011 timetable (for example) seems very generous.

It's here: https://www.railtables.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/railtables/network/dec11/Table115.pdf

The off-peak pattern was:

xx07 Birmingham semi-fast: High Wycombe, Bicester North, Banbury and beyond
xx10 Banbury semi-fast: High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and all (not all serve Kings Sutton)
xx13 Princes Risborough Semi-fast: Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and all
xx16 High Wycombe stopper (not all stops served)

xx37 Birmingham fast: fast to Banbury
xx40 Bicester North : Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, then all
xx43 High Wycombe stopper (not all stops served)

In particular the xx10 and xx13 look like they could have been combined into one service.

Anyone remember this and is aware of the reasons for those separate xx10 and xx13 services?

 

[87015]

Anyone remember this and is aware of the reasons for those separate xx10 and xx13 services?

Oxford-ready, isn't it?

 

[Route115?]

Adrian Shooter wanted a share of the London - Bham market accounting for 2 tph. It was thought that there would be significant Stratford upon Avon tourist traffic - up to 1 tph. As the last post mentions, there were two trains that could be extended to Oxford. Plus 2 stoppers so that the longer distance trains could run reasonably fast, a total of 7 tph.

Everything was DOO to Banbury and you would have had to run that level of service in the peak so crew costs were managable whilst short trains reduced vehicle mileage.

The service on the Amersham line was less intense (LUL didn't like the extra trains anyway). The inner service was downright poor (management wasn't interested in it when I worked there in the 90s and I'm not sure that it changed later). Whether running so many trains on a two track railway was a good idea is another matter. High frequency is good but a late train delays others. Also there was a lot of skip stopping which made intermediate journeys difficult, particularly in the inner London area.

Also when I was there Adrian Shooter didn't like trains coupling in service as it was where things could go wrong, henve running separate trains to each destination.

In interesting questions is whether it was worth running a through service from Kidderminster in the peaks rather than relying on the local opeartor for connections. It was obviously thought so.

 

[philosopher]

One thing I've always wondered about (and I noticed this when travelling to High Wycombe in 2011) is the very generous level of off-peak service provision on the main line in the early 2010s. Now I'm not someone who supports service cuts, and prefers to see service improvements, but even still, the autumn 2011 timetable (for example) seems very generous.

It's here: https://www.railtables.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/railtables/network/dec11/Table115.pdf

The off-peak pattern was:

xx07 Birmingham semi-fast: High Wycombe, Bicester North, Banbury and beyond
xx10 Banbury semi-fast: High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and all (not all serve Kings Sutton)
xx13 Princes Risborough Semi-fast: Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and all
xx16 High Wycombe stopper (not all stops served)

xx37 Birmingham fast: fast to Banbury
xx40 Bicester North : Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, then all
xx43 High Wycombe stopper (not all stops served)

In particular the xx10 and xx13 look like they could have been combined into one service.

Anyone remember this and is aware of the reasons for those separate xx10 and xx13 services?

As a frequent user of Chiltern, I seem to remember that this timetable did not last long, perhaps only a year or two. The timetable was fairly quickly changed so that the Birmingham fast services was moved to xx10 and had a stop at High Wycombe added in. The Birmingham Semi Fast was moved to xx40. The timetable seemed to then remain largely unchanged until Covid.

I assume this timetable was good for those travelling to the West Midlands but not so good for those travelling for shorter distances on the southern section of the line.

 

[nw1]

As a frequent user of Chiltern, I seem to remember that this timetable did not last long, perhaps only a year or two. The timetable was fairly quickly changed so that the Birmingham fast services was moved to xx10 and had a stop at High Wycombe added in. The Birmingham Semi Fast was moved to xx40. The timetable seemed to then remain largely unchanged until Covid.

I assume this timetable was good for those travelling to the West Midlands but not so good for those travelling for shorter distances on the southern section of the line.

It's interesting that services did skip High Wycombe. Given it's a sizable place, I'd have expected it to be a call for all services, including both Birmingham services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's interesting that services did skip High Wycombe. Given it's a sizable place, I'd have expected it to be a call for all services, including both Birmingham services.

You reckon?

The whole thing is very similar to the LNR services out of Euston (but minus Avanti) and has a very similar kind of service pattern. That's like saying all LNR services should stop at Watford (similar size and significance of place), but they don't. They partly don't because on the fast lines it'd eat paths (not applicable to Chiltern) but it's also about not overcrowding the longer distance services with short distance passengers.

 

[nw1]

You reckon?

The whole thing is very similar to the LNR services out of Euston (but minus Avanti) and has a very similar kind of service pattern. That's like saying all LNR services should stop at Watford (similar size and significance of place), but they don't. They partly don't because on the fast lines it'd eat paths (not applicable to Chiltern) but it's also about not overcrowding the longer distance services with short distance passengers.

I suppose it comes down to what the raison d'etre for Chiltern is (or was in 2011, as that is the timetable under discussion).

If its prime purpose is to provide connectivity to London and Birmingham from intermediate points (High Wycombe, Banbury, Leamington and Solihull being the most obvious), then presumably all four of those stations should be served with every train. And if its prime purpose is for end-to-end passengers, four intermediate stops over a distance of more than 100 miles is really not very many. Prime Bristol Temple Meads services have as many (Reading, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath - plus Didcot for some).

I would rather suspect that all LNR services would serve Watford if they were not prevented from doing so by pathing issues - in the same way that Woking is served by just about everything apart from one Weymouth train (whose WCML equivalent in 2011 was, arguably, the Virgin service).

 

[philosopher]

It's interesting that services did skip High Wycombe. Given it's a sizable place, I'd have expected it to be a call for all services, including both Birmingham services.

This always surprised me as trains have to slow down considerably at High Wycombe even if they are not stopping, so there is less of time penalty from stopping at High Wycombe than most other stops on the Chiltern Mainline.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This always surprised me as trains have to slow down considerably at High Wycombe even if they are not stopping, so there is less of time penalty from stopping at High Wycombe than most other stops on the Chiltern Mainline.

Is it in part due to capacity, I wonder? Wycombe is quite busy and could result in needing to run long trains all the way from Brum that only get full having already done two thirds of their route?

 

[nw1]

Is it in part due to capacity, I wonder? Wycombe is quite busy and could result in needing to run long trains all the way from Brum that only get full having already done two thirds of their route?

Could one argue for 8-car trains as standard from Birmingham? Are there enough units to go round?
(Perhaps it would have been easier back in 2011 when they could have just ordered new trains more easily, to supplement the existing fleet).

Perhaps with a High Wycombe stop on both Birminghams one or two of the other five trains per hour could have been removed.

Speaking in a recent-historical sense (late 00s, early 10s) could the route in principle have operated with 5tph rather than 6 or 7, e.g.

Two Birminghams, length 8 coaches or so, all calling at High Wycombe, Banbury, Leamington and Solihull, and one of the two calling additionally at other stations e.g. Bicester, Warwick, Warwick Parkway

One semi-fast to Banbury

Two stoppers to High Wycombe, one of the two extending to Bicester.

I'm not complaining about the generous service btw (!) - I am not one for cuts - just exploring whether less tph would have actually been feasible.

 

[JonathanH]

Could one argue for 8-car trains as standard from Birmingham? Are there enough units to go round?

No chance. The Chiltern model has always been fairly short trains. There are some short platform issues on the network.

 

[CE142]

One of the reason for skipping High Wycombe is that it is served well by other services from MYB,so you don't want your long distance services towards Birmingham/Kidderminster clogged up with High Wycome Passengers during Rush Hour, similar to Milton Keynes on the WCML.