Delayed 12:12 Leeds - Plymouth

[MCR247]

You are going to lose so many passengers if you do that.

 

[dk1]

tbtc - The overcrowding on the PNZ-WAT service yesterday seemed to be (at least as far as Exeter) as a result of the preceding 0940 Arriva XC service not running yesterday. Additionally, with the reduced service FGW were running as a result of the Reading closure yesterday, I am guessing (and I don't know this) that there must have been spare HSTs somewhere yesterday. I'm sure there was an HST set at Eastern Green, Penzance as we set off - this might have been diagrammed later, of course. If the Arriva service had run, or a relief HST had run from Penzance to Bristol TM taking most of the "local" passengers, I think my overcrowding experience would not have happened.

Trouble is it wasn't FGWs problem. I know that in the deepest South West the TOCs all help each other out (hence Virgin giving FGW a special, & usually only internal award for the massive help following Hatfield) when the chips are down but the set you saw was most likely diagrammed for something else or was not fit for service due to failure. Even then was there any staff to crew it?

 

[tbtc]

You are going to lose so many passengers if you do that.

Are the passengers doing journeys of over 200 miles more important than the ones doing journeys of 100 miles?

It's an open question (I'm trying not to prejudice) - should XC concentrate on:

1. Long distance flows (200 miles +)
2. Journeys closer to an hour in duration
3. The "Core" (ignore Aberdeen/ Penzance etc)

...because they can't manage all three right now

 

[TheBigD]

It's an open question (I'm trying not to prejudice) - should XC concentrate on:

3. The "Core" (ignore Aberdeen/ Penzance etc)

Both Aberdeen and Penzance are done in marginal time, when the unit can't be used for much else, eg 0630 ex Penznace. Doing away with these won't actually provide any more resources for strengthening the "core" routes.

 

[MCR247]

Are the passengers doing journeys of over 200 miles more important than the ones doing journeys of 100 miles?

It's an open question (I'm trying not to prejudice) - should XC concentrate on:

1. Long distance flows (200 miles +)
2. Journeys closer to an hour in duration
3. The "Core" (ignore Aberdeen/ Penzance etc)

...because they can't manage all three right now

No, but passengers don't like changing.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

should XC concentrate on:

1. Long distance flows (200 miles +)
2. Journeys closer to an hour in duration
3. The "Core" (ignore Aberdeen/ Penzance etc)

...because they can't manage all three right now

The crux of the matter. The discussion about Sheffield - Leeds only proves the point, because it sounds like XC have done a lot of work changing diagrams ad trying to reroute services for a traffic flow which on paper should be nothing to do with them anyway.

If Sheffield - Leeds, and Derby - Birmingham and that sort of short working is where XC get the bulk of their traffic, is there any point in running to extremities for what is a minority of passengers? I absolutely get the point that currently he most northern and southern extensions happen in dead time, but with a recast timetable these would be eliminated, freeing sets up to be doubled on the core. If thats where the bulk of the XC punters want the capacity, shouldn't they provide it?

And no, passengers don't like changing trains. But in a world of so many family priced tickets being advance and therefore with mandatory reservations, its less of an issue.

 

[tbtc]

No, but passengers don't like changing.

So, how do you deal with that?

Do you go back to the British Rail arrangement where Exeter had a service to Glasgow followed by a service to Newcastle followed by a service to Manchester?

Or do you feel that hourly clockface services on the core attract more people than random links?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The crux of the matter. The discussion about Sheffield - Leeds only proves the point, because it sounds like XC have done a lot of work changing diagrams ad trying to reroute services for a traffic flow which on paper should be nothing to do with them anyway.

If Sheffield - Leeds, and Derby - Birmingham and that sort of short working is where XC get the bulk of their traffic, is there any point in running to extremities for what is a minority of passengers? I absolutely get the point that currently he most northern and southern extensions happen in dead time, but with a recast timetable these would be eliminated, freeing sets up to be doubled on the core. If thats where the bulk of the XC punters want the capacity, shouldn't they provide it?

And no, passengers don't like changing trains. But in a world of so many family priced tickets being advance and therefore with mandatory reservations, its less of an issue.

Agreed.

We need to decide whether XC should be doing "local" flows like SHeffield - Leeds or not. At Operation Princess we got an hour;y XC service taking approx 45/50 minutes (compared to a stopper via Rotehrham taking approx 70/75 minutes and a stopper via Castleford taking approx 90 minutes). Now we have two "semi fast" Northern services an hour (on top of hte existing services) which has taken some pressure off the XC service (through the XC service is still the fastest, so more people gravitate towards it).

Should SWT/ FGW etc be doing the same to beef up their services? Or do we decide that XC are the provider of such flows (and forget the people in Plymouth wanting to go to Edinburgh)? Tough one

 

[Failed Unit]

No, but passengers don't like changing.

They don't but that doesn't seem to influence DFT now. WCML is off XC. Liverpool and Lincoln have lost many direct trains and objections were ignored. Most Lincoln - birmingham traffic is now on the roads. So DFT would not really care about people changing trains I mean oxenholme can't get to Bristol direct any more.

They problem is also the local traffic. They have sped up east coast from May 2011. If the removed XC who or what would serve Dunbar or Motherwell? Many would agree and EMu service could be the answer but that is more trains needed. If you build more EMUs why not turn over Birmingham - Manchester to EMUs? A 4 car 350 has more seats than a 5 car 221. Electrify Coventry - Bassingstoke and you have an EMU service. But then if you must build new trains get the voyagers away from virgin and get emus on the route.

I am sure if this proposal takes off 5 & 6 car trains for XC would be fine most of the time. Not sure if the 4 car sets could be increased to 6 with an unpowered coach and pantograph coach.

 

[Old Timer]

THis dislike of changing things is obviously a British thing, probably caused by an inherent laziness, as the average British passenger wants a train to run direct to every station they he will ever choose to travel to, even if he only uses it once !

Some Eurpoean and other Railway systems across the world operate key corridors which stop at hub stations to which and from feeder servcies operate. NS is a good example of this.

 

[Failed Unit]

Old timer. It is more the fear of missing connections from a personal point of view. The London - Cleethorpes train was not viable during privatisation granted. When you missed the connection a Newark a few times, needed to wait 45 minutes for next Lincoln service then get bundled into a taxi you soon took logical action - drive to Newark. I have nothing against changing trains but connections are not gaurenteed and waiting a hour until your next one for a 10 minute delay makes you miss your direct train.

 

[tbtc]

If you build more EMUs why not turn over Birmingham - Manchester to EMUs? A 4 car 350 has more seats than a 5 car 221. Electrify Coventry - Bassingstoke and you have an EMU service. But then if you must build new trains get the voyagers away from virgin and get emus on the route.

I am sure if this proposal takes off 5 & 6 car trains for XC would be fine most of the time. Not sure if the 4 car sets could be increased to 6 with an unpowered coach and pantograph coach.

I agree about the Manchester section - a newbuild of fast EMUs suited to middle/long distance routes (Manchester - WCML - Edinburgh/ Glasgow, London - Norwich etc).

Since the two "end" coaches on a Voyager have a combined seating of around the same as two "normal" DMU coaches (70-ish), an extension from five to six coaches would be a much bigger increase than the 20% it sounds like. I think it'd only take an additional coach or two for Voyagers to cope with most journeys easily. The frequency is fine. The range of destinations is fine.

Sort out the number of carriages and you'll attract people back to the railways, you'll be able to sell "XC-specific" advance tickets (because there will be the capacity to do so), you'll have much shorter dwell times at stations (because people will be using twelve/ fourteen/ sixteen doors rather than just eight)...

One trouble is that Voyagers are going to be getting on for a third/ a half of the way through their "life expectancy" before any additional coaches get built - would this affect the centre coaches? Would the ROSCO be wary of building a coach for a unit that may only last another fifteen/twenty years (rather than building a coach that will be used for another thirty years)?

 

[Max]

THis dislike of changing things is obviously a British thing, probably caused by an inherent laziness, as the average British passenger wants a train to run direct to every station they he will ever choose to travel to, even if he only uses it once !

I don't think it is fair to blame 'laziness'. Many passengers are genuinely scared of changing trains, worried about missing connections, getting all their bags off the train before it leaves. They then have the hassle of dragging bags around what are often confusing and inaccessible interchange stations. And the inconvenience of waiting on cold, drafty platforms with poor quality and overpriced catering options. I accept that some of these things have improved in recent years, but still, through trains do still provide a great deal of convenience.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think it is fair to blame 'laziness'. Many passengers are genuinely scared of changing trains, worried about missing connections, getting all their bags off the train before it leaves. They then have the hassle of dragging bags around what are often confusing and inaccessible interchange stations. And the inconvenience of waiting on cold, drafty platforms with poor quality and overpriced catering options. I accept that some of these things have improved in recent years, but still, through trains do still provide a great deal of convenience.

I'd hope that having an increased frequency on main lines (with trains generally split out at regular intervals), plus more "disability friendly" stations would mean changing was less of an issue than in the past.

Virgin were good at trying to encourage people to change at places like Cheltenham/ Oxford (instead of New Street) to ensure "same platform" changes.

However, I accept that there will always be some who would only accept a direct service - the question is whether their needs outweigh others

 

[island]

Can we not arrange services so that those prepared to pay for it can pay for "reservation only" trains and be guaranteed a seat - perhaps basically a first class train. Those not prepared or able to pay for it could catch non-reservation only trains? FGW used to have this arrangement on Summer Saturdays and busy periods... is it really too difficult to bring back? Plenty of European rail operators do it, I understand.

Irish Rail being one of the more recent examples, and there has been a positive reaction there. They don't charge a supplement for advance tickets either.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't think it is fair to blame 'laziness'. Many passengers are genuinely scared of changing trains, worried about missing connections, getting all their bags off the train before it leaves. They then have the hassle of dragging bags around what are often confusing and inaccessible interchange stations. And the inconvenience of waiting on cold, drafty platforms with poor quality and overpriced catering options. I accept that some of these things have improved in recent years, but still, through trains do still provide a great deal of convenience.

Point taken but using interchange stations does not seem to be a problem for our European partners.

 

[142094]

Point taken but using interchange stations does not seem to be a problem for our European partners.

Fair point, but again if you look at services in the UK that are direct compared to having to change at least once, many people will choose to take the direct train even if it means getting there slower. If the railway is going to compete with airlines and coaches then there should be more made of the fact that there is less hassle travelling by direct train rather than other modes (which some operators are doing in their adverts, such as recent ones by EC).

 

[Failed Unit]

Point taken but using interchange stations does not seem to be a problem for our European partners.

I am sure out partners in Europe wouldn't put IC trains on platforms as poor as 8 & 9 at Edinburgh Waverley and expect them to enjoy it (or the freezing cold winds)

I am sure most people would be happy if the station was good. Newark improved a lot to be fair after the withdrawl of the direct IC service from Cleethorpes. You could shelter from the wind, the cafe was open longer and was indoor etc.

Thinking about the various comments earlier about XC concentrating on the core, that may not be a bad idea, if there really is a profitable flow for direct trains between Newcastle and Bristol for example I am sure an open access operator will come along and do some raiding

Shame East Coast don't have enough sets to go back to Glasgow again, along with extend all the Newcastle terminators so they can cover the local stations on the way to Edinburgh. XC set from my experience are very lightly loaded from Edinburgh. Even for me to get to Leeds i prefer to change at York than go direct. More because the service offered by East Coast is better and I can use my mobile phone on board (the Voyagers seem to isolate signals very well, something Virgin has fixed to be fair)

 

[IanXC]

One trouble is that Voyagers are going to be getting on for a third/ a half of the way through their "life expectancy" before any additional coaches get built - would this affect the centre coaches? Would the ROSCO be wary of building a coach for a unit that may only last another fifteen/twenty years (rather than building a coach that will be used for another thirty years)?

My view is that it needs to be accepted that the Voyagers are the wrong stock for XC. I think its now too late for extending the sets, as tbtc says the time any new coaches would be in service is just too short.

I think the best way forward would be a new build for XC, potentially bimode IEP/bimode new, longer, voyagers or whatever comes along. The Voyagers could then be cascaded to TPE/Turbostar XC routes/SWT 158&159/EMT Liverpool-Norwich routes to relieve their overcrowding or update their stock and then have a further cascade of potentially 158/159/170/185 stock. In fact 185s (reformed as 2 and 4 car units) could be perfect for EMT.

The benefit as far as I see it is increasing the order for whatever will replace the HSTs, and further standardising the IC fleet. It then provides cascades which produce DMU stock for the regional operators, without placing further non-standard orders. It could even be done in conjunction with replacing the diesel VT fleet.

 

[northwichcat]

One EU vs Britain issue is that in Britain a train is only held for a late running connection if it's the last train of the day. In Europe it's a common practice and the services quite often use recovery time to make up the time that they lost by waiting for the late connecting train.

A serious question is what's going to happen during the Olympics? London will probably get the transport support it requires. However, football and sailing isn't taking place in London so this will certainly increase loadings on operators like VT, XC, TPE, FGW, EC and Northern, with all of those operators already having seriously overcrowded services.

 

[Eric]

Traveling back on the delayed 17:12 XC service to Edinburgh which is currently 66 minutes late (due to a frozen point outside Stoke we've been informed).

But at least the XC service is an 11 car HST set.

I'm currently sat in coach F and have a table all to myself.

This makes up for the horrible journey that I endured in both directions the other day.

 

[Old Timer]

Traveling back on the delayed 17:12 XC service to Edinburgh which is currently 66 minutes late (due to a frozen point outside Stoke we've been informed).

But at least the XC service is an 11 car HST set.

I'm currently sat in coach F and have a table all to myself.

This makes up for the horrible journey that I endured in both directions the other day.

I presume we will be hearing the engagement announcement later on in the week ?

Although one might forgive the potential bride for being a little less than enthusiastic given the comments made last week I fear

 

[tbtc]

the XC service is an 11 car HST set

Eleven car?

Was it the legendary eleven-car green London MIdland HST hauled by a class 90? Oh, wait, that was the other thread...