Direct trains to London- does everywhere need them?

[jopsuk]

There's seems to be something of a fashion of late for providing every damn shack with a direct service to London.

Now, surely this is madness, and a poor use of network capacity?

Surely, better would be to run more frequent, faster express services between primary "hub" stations, and have more frequent local/branch services intelligently timetabled to connect to them.

Now, for this to be truly realised, the following would help:
Large scale resignalling, to cut headway times
Doubling of single track branches
Quadruppling of double track "Main lines"- this would allow more local "slow" services to run alongside the express lines, between hubs- with no overlap. For example, I'd reduce the ECML, Edinburgh route, long distance services to stopping at Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh. All services would stop all stops, on a half-hourly basis. Four-track all the way would allow for vastly improved local services- possibly with several new stations where the line passes through/close to towns without a current station. Services would run, non-overlapping, London-Peterborough, Peterborough-York, York-Newcastle and Newcastle-Edinburgh.

Leeds would retain direct services (stopping Doncaster and Peterborough). With improved "branch" services, I reckon Hull and Sunderland could actually have better links to London than present (my plan encompasses nationalisation and the abolition of open access as a given)

This approach could be applied simialrly to the GEML, SWML, GWML, WCML and MML. Long distance stock should not be undertaking "stopping" type services. It's just WRONG.

It would cause uproar. Serious uproar. This is because I believe the public is generally stiupid, and would view the gain of many more faster journeys to London as not high enough recompense for losing three or four "direct" trains a day- many of which (within franchises, anyways) are frankly there just as political concessions- for instance, whilst nice, the one-a-day Highland Chieftan is hardly a good use of the network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I expect to be told I'm wrong.

 

[tbtc]

There's seems to be something of a fashion of late for providing every damn shack with a direct service to London.

Now, surely this is madness, and a poor use of network capacity?

Surely, better would be to run more frequent, faster express services between primary "hub" stations, and have more frequent local/branch services intelligently timetabled to connect to them

I completly agree!

From an operational viewpoint, we should keep things as simple as possible. Keep fast intercity trains on fast intercity routes, and local trains on local ones. Maximises capacity, stops wasted resources and conflicts.

Sadly, we live in a world where local politicians demand a direct link to everywhere, meaning we have shorter slower trains wasting paths on Main Lines.

For example, the ECML is going to have three operators running five coach 180s, meaning fewer seats and a longer journey time than if the ECML as all 125s/ 225s.

You'd get more trains on the ECML if they were all proper Intercity ones, and you'd contain any delays if only ECML trains ran on the ECML and vice versa (e.g. no extensions to Inverness/ Hull/ Harrogate).

Sadly, the future seems to be lots more "token" services to small places, to ensure that everywhere is linked to London.

 

[Dennis]

100% agree; I'm not entirely familiar with operations in the area you have highlighted but seeing HST's poodling round the extremities of the network seems wrong (OK - some summer Saturday services to the coast might be an exception).

An interesting contradiction is SWT and GW services from London to Devon - the former being all MU serving small villages, the latter HST's calling at far fewer stops en route. Which is more useful - lots of slow trains serving a large number of communities or a smaller number of trains where significant road journies may be involved to reach the infrequent but fast trains?

 

[gingerheid]

From a cold, hard, practical, rational point of view, you are right.

But we aren't cold, hard or practical, and we're far from rational.

As humans we are strange beasts. We don't like changing means of transport, and we certainly don't like changing modes of transport.

We should be transported around the country in networks that are a lot similar to parcel networks, using the most efficient means of transport between different hubs, which would often be edge of town if travel across the country was involved.

However as humans (in general) we would rather drive or not go at all if we think we might miss the connection, of if we're too thick to work out how to change a train and think we might get lost in New Street, or to be bothered to buy tickets for more than one mode of transport, or...

In addition, our transport networks are too fragmented and wouldn't let us do the job properly if we tried to. The bus would miss the train due to traffic. The through ticket would be twice the price of advance purchase tickets for the connections, but the second train company would tell us "tough; ticket was for the reserved train only" if we bought separately and the first was late. Or the train connections will be timed to miss each other. Or the...

The ECML is the perfect example of the unjoined up railway. We have fullish small trains from Hull taking up paths fullish big trains could be using. We have fullish big trains that disgorge all their passengers at Edinburgh and then carry on nearly empty for another 4 hours.

But if we told people in Aberdeen and Inverness to change, they'd probably fly instead. And if we had two small trains from Aberdeen and Inverness try to meet each other in Edinburgh to go down the ECML as one big train, they'd probably miss each other.

And I'm as guilty. I already have to change 2 or 3 times on my ECML based journey home. It would be logical for Glasgow ECML trains to turn back at Edinburgh, they are always pleasantly empty for the last bit of the journey. But I'm dammed if I could be bothered making the journey if I had to change 4 times and one of the changes was walking across a city.

I'd say the solution is to increase capacity, so that we have enough capacity available to be able to waste it by pandering to our inefficient desires.

 

[43106]

I can see some logic, merit and reason in the original argument, but there are some factors that have been overlooked.
Firstly, look at the size of London (in terms of its area AND population size) in relation to the rest of the country. It’s a magnet, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Secondly, if you look at a map of the railway lines of England, Scotland and Wales (past and present), you’ll see that they predominantly radiate from London.
Therefore, it’s a fair guess that a lot of people want to go to and from London.
Some of JOPSUK’s original comments are valid – I’d love to see a huge amount of quadrupling on the ECML, certainly between Kings Cross and Doncaster. This will allow express and local trains to run in parallel with minimal interference. However, there are stretches of the ECML that cannot justifiably be similarly upgraded. The current arrangements between Doncaster and Edinburgh are, in my view, adequate.
I concede that there have been attempts to provide a service between London and every outside toilet on the network. Someone (North Western?) tried to link Rochdale, Newton-le-Willows and a few other places with London using (I think) 158s. It didn’t last long – (thankfully!) – and I doubt if some of the current intentions (e.g. the proposed Shrewsbury – London service) will work either.
Returning to the ECML, the section between Newcastle and Edinburgh is a problem. Because of the sheer distance between these cities, a local service is virtually impossible. There are no passing loops at any station (except Dunbar, which only has one). I doubt if the travelling public would tolerate waiting at, say, the Belford Loops for a fast NXEC to pass them. With the frequent service between Edinburgh and Newcastle, there isn’t room to fit in a comparatively slow service between them. The only solution I can see is doubling the size of Berwick-upon-Tweed, but this, by itself, wouldn’t be enough. That’s why long distance stuff to Aberdeen and Inverness has to stop at places like Dunbar and Alnmouth.
I am in favour of long-distance stopping services to/from London, as it reduces the need to change trains and therefore saves time. Not everyone wants to go to London, but If I wanted to travel from, say, Durham to Stevenage, I’d have to change twice. By ‘joining’ up the local Edinburgh – Newcastle, Newcastle – York, York – Peterborough and Peterborough – London services, you do away with this.
Jopsuk’s wishes require massive modifications to the infrastructure. Unfortunately, they just ain’t gonna happen. What he could try doing is seeing if his proposals can work using the present infrastructure.

 

[j0hn0]

I live in Rugby, we have lost our connection to Glasgow, National rail enquiries says that I must travel to London with one ticket and then buy another for the 1 stop glasgow service.
Mmm, convenient.
I am actually looking at jobs in London as the commute is just as easy, if not more so than Birmingham or any other close midland towns

 

[Proud Salopian]

I feel that if the long-distance routes on the British network were organised better and covered a wider area (similar to how it was in the 70s/80s) then we wouldn't have this trouble of lots of proposals of small operations from parts of the country to the capital.

For example, my part of the world - Shropshire. There used to be an Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-London intercity service. Why is Shrewsbury (and the larger town of Telford) not today on either the XC network at the very least? The Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton Line should be an electrified line too, which would allow for better potential links with the West Coast Mainline and London. I would have thought an Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-London and/or Chester-Shrewsbury-London route (or not necessarily London, but Reading or so) for XC would make sense. No?

Heck, even the Cardiff-Shrewsbury-Manchester route should be served by something better than 175s (which of course come from even further - Milford Haven and such). It's a clear example of mixing local passenger services with a strategic long-distance rail route. Why isn't that route XC?

The regional franchises should operate the local trains in their areas. More longer-distance operators/routes need to be permanently established. We wouldn't need lots of proposals and operators to run trains from x to y specially, if x and y were connected anyway as part of a larger long-distance network.

(e.g. the proposed Shrewsbury – London service) will work either.

You surely can't mean the Wrexham & Shropshire service, which is very popular and has been running for over a year now? :roll: There IS demand for a direct London train from Shrewsbury and Telford (those towns have a combined population of over 200,000 btw) and why Shrewsbury has been relegated over the past two decades to some minor hub of local passenger services is beyond me, considering its position in the wider network.

There needs to be a proper re-think of how the network is organised and a proper long-distance network within that network should be created. Train travel is increasingly becoming more about long-distance travel after all.

 

[tbtc]

Why is Shrewsbury (and the larger town of Telford) not today on either the XC network at the very least? The Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton Line should be an electrified line too, which would allow for better potential links with the West Coast Mainline and London

Presumably because all services on the Wolverhampton line are fairly "local" beyond Shrewsbury?

Telford would probably get a much better service if it was in the West Midlands, given "Centro" (Network West Midlands etc) funding.

Is there capacity on the line for an additional train per hour from Wolves to Shrewsbury at the moment?

Heck, even the Cardiff-Shrewsbury-Manchester route should be served by something better than 175s

A 175 isn't that much worse than a Voyager - better in some respects - be careful what you wish for!

 

[The Planner]

Theres more traffic on the Wolves Shrewsbury corridor than people think. You have the ATW Aber/Holyhead, the LM locals, WSMR, Ironbridge coal and the Portbury/Avonmouth - Rugeley MGRs. The issue you have is the 6 minute headways on the line.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

I think you could renationalise the passenger side for the franchised side of things, but keep the Open Access Operators there. Quadrupling the ECML would be a great idea, aspecially as a lot of trackbed is still there, shame about the OHLE masts in the way...

 

[tbtc]

Quadrupling the ECML would be a great idea, aspecially as a lot of trackbed is still there, shame about the OHLE masts in the way...

They should tear down the masts (built on the cheap) and replace them with proper infrastructure - they come down far too easily - and when they are putting proper new ones up they should sort out the capacity issues.

 

[43106]

They should tear down the masts (built on the cheap) and replace them with proper infrastructure - they come down far too easily....

I know I'm deviating from the thread a smidge, but I've been knackered by OHLE coming down on the ECML. I heard from someone years ago that when the ECML was being electrified, Maggie Thatcher demanded that the OHLE be as cheap as possible, hence its susceptability to damage. The same source also said that the company that was to run the main ECML services wanted 36 electric train sets, but only got 34. Anyone know if there's any truth in that?

 

[GNERman]

I think that a lot of places find it useful to have a direct service
Skipton has benefitted dearly from it...

 

[bluenoxid]

I know I'm deviating from the thread a smidge, but I've been knackered by OHLE coming down on the ECML. I heard from someone years ago that when the ECML was being electrified, Maggie Thatcher demanded that the OHLE be as cheap as possible, hence its susceptability to damage. The same source also said that the company that was to run the main ECML services wanted 36 electric train sets, but only got 34. Anyone know if there's any truth in that?

They only got 31.

I love the assumptions made in this thread. Fullish small trains from Hull replaced by fullish small trains from somewhere else. Where from exactly?

 

[asylumxl]

Corby will benefit from it

 

[tbtc]

I love the assumptions made in this thread. Fullish small trains from Hull

If that's a reference to me, then I was criticising the use of Turbostars/ 222s/ 180s on the ECML which I feel is a waste, as they can't reach Intercity speeds and obviously don't have as many seats as a 225 set.

However to allow places a direct link to London, we have to put up with this wasteful situation.

 

[northernbored]

I think that daily return services from mid size branch line towns should be made avaliable, as afterall towns like retford because of it location gets a very good service to London and at all other times changes, could be better intergrated into the timetable with more uniform services.

 

[GNERman]

If that's a reference to me, then I was criticising the use of Turbostars/ 222s/ 180s on the ECML which I feel is a waste, as they can't reach Intercity speeds and obviously don't have as many seats as a 225 set.

However to allow places a direct link to London, we have to put up with this wasteful situation.

yeah hull trains 170's weren't bril as they could only do 100mph
180 and 222 are ok just don't hold as many people - whichi is fine for FHT and GC/GU

 

[ukrob]

If that's a reference to me, then I was criticising the use of Turbostars/ 222s/ 180s on the ECML which I feel is a waste, as they can't reach Intercity speeds and obviously don't have as many seats as a 225 set.

However to allow places a direct link to London, we have to put up with this wasteful situation.

Who operates Turbostars on the ECML and what is this 'intercity speed' that 180s and 222s can't reach?

 

[shinkansen09]

I'd reduce the ECML, Edinburgh route, long distance services to stopping at Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh. All services would stop all stops, on a half-hourly basis. Four-track all the way would allow for vastly improved local services- possibly with several new stations where the line passes through/close to towns without a current station. Services would run, non-overlapping, London-Peterborough, Peterborough-York, York-Newcastle and Newcastle-Edinburgh.


I believe the public is generally stiupid, --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I expect to be told I'm wrong.

You`re wrong :roll:
What is the timing for such a service at present?
Do fast services that run non-stop from London to York run empty?, I don`t suppose they do.....
I sympathise with the ideal world you would like to live in, but how much tax do you want to pay for four tracking the ECML? I remember thinking how ludicrous it was to take out the four tracking south of Peterborough towards Huntingdon....that will never work???....but it does....not very well I grant you ...but it works.
As for your dedicated slow services....why should people pay for an expensive ticket to travel from Peterborough to Newark for example on a slower train with a worse quality of service and an extended journey time.:cry:
As for the main flaw in your master plan....platform availability :roll:
So Trains from London would terminate at P`boro...as well as the current FCC services?...Trains from york would terminate at P`boro.....and be cleaned and turned round where exactly?...platform availability is limited and the chaos caused by any late running service is bad enough at present with B`ham - Stanstead, Norwich - Manchester, Pboro - KX, P`boro - Spalding/Lincoln without throwing in a handful of extra York or London services with dwell times of 10 - 15 - 20 minutes?
This is why you obviously don`t work in train planning....
As for the comment "I believe the public is generally stiupid".....you my friend are a member of the general public........enough said

 

[northernbored]

Who operates Turbostars on the ECML and what is this 'intercity speed' that 180s and 222s can't reach?

HT used to operate 170's before they got there 222s not sure what they mean by not reaching intercity speed, they both comfortabley do 125mph.

 

[tbtc]

Who operates Turbostars on the ECML and what is this 'intercity speed' that 180s and 222s can't reach?

HT used to operate 170's before they got there 222s not sure what they mean by not reaching intercity speed, they both comfortabley do 125mph.

As Northernbored has said, it was a reference to running little 100mph trains on the ECML (which Hull Trains started with) - a complete waste of resources, but the kind of sacrifice needed to give Hull a direct service. Whether that sacrifice is worth it is the reason for the thread.

Even the 180/222s are five coach 125mph machines that are taking paths that could potentially be filled by nine coach 140mph (e.g. 225 kmph) 225. I fully accept that there's not enough 225s to fill these paths at the moment, and that the EMCL infrastructure wouldn't allow 140mph running at the moment, but since this thread is talking hypotheticals, so am I.

Running five coach trains from London to Doncaster (or York, when GC get their 180) is a waste.

 

[ukrob]

As Northernbored has said, it was a reference to running little 100mph trains on the ECML (which Hull Trains started with) - a complete waste of resources, but the kind of sacrifice needed to give Hull a direct service. Whether that sacrifice is worth it is the reason for the thread.

Even the 180/222s are five coach 125mph machines that are taking paths that could potentially be filled by nine coach 140mph (e.g. 225 kmph) 225. I fully accept that there's not enough 225s to fill these paths at the moment, and that the EMCL infrastructure wouldn't allow 140mph running at the moment, but since this thread is talking hypotheticals, so am I.

Running five coach trains from London to Doncaster (or York, when GC get their 180) is a waste.

I know that Hull Trains used to run Turbostars. I see you make no mention of my point which is asking you what is 'intercity speed' if the 180s and 222s don't run at it therefore I can assume you only made that statement to try and fool people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HT used to operate 170's before they got there 222s not sure what they mean by not reaching intercity speed, they both comfortabley do 125mph.

I know, that is my point. Read it in context

 

[bluenoxid]

As Northernbored has said, it was a reference to running little 100mph trains on the ECML (which Hull Trains started with) - a complete waste of resources, but the kind of sacrifice needed to give Hull a direct service. Whether that sacrifice is worth it is the reason for the thread.

Even the 180/222s are five coach 125mph machines that are taking paths that could potentially be filled by nine coach 140mph (e.g. 225 kmph) 225. I fully accept that there's not enough 225s to fill these paths at the moment, and that the EMCL infrastructure wouldn't allow 140mph running at the moment, but since this thread is talking hypotheticals, so am I.

Running five coach trains from London to Doncaster (or York, when GC get their 180) is a waste.

Surely then you are also criticising services formed of little one and two car stock which cross the ECML at various points (taking out capacity on the main route) but provide critical connectivity between major places and settlements.

Whilst it may seem damning that five carriage trains are running in paths that could potentially be taken by nine carriage train if we had enough and the infrastructure could take them, surely it is damaging if a nine carriage train is running around at say 50% average utilisation of seating capacity rather than a five carriage train running around at 90% utilisation of seating capacity.

 

[tbtc]

I know that Hull Trains used to run Turbostars. I see you make no mention of my point which is asking you what is 'intercity speed' if the 180s and 222s don't run at it therefore I can assume you only made that statement to try and fool people

Er, that's why I talked about the 225s top speed, which smaller DMUs can't reach...

There's also the wasteful issue of running diesels under the wires for so long (in order to provide everywhere with a link to London), but that's another topic I suppose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely then you are also criticising services formed of little one and two car stock which cross the ECML at various points (taking out capacity on the main route) but provide critical connectivity between major places and settlements

Since the thread was about links to London, I was talking about that.

However, issues like the crossing at Newark need adressing if we are to tackle capacity properly on this line (if that is what you are referring to).

Whilst it may seem damning that five carriage trains are running in paths that could potentially be taken by nine carriage train if we had enough and the infrastructure could take them, surely it is damaging if a nine carriage train is running around at say 50% average utilisation of seating capacity rather than a five carriage train running around at 90% utilisation of seating capacity.

I've always said that we need longer trains rather than more trains. I'd rather we had five long trains from London each hour, than seven trains (of which a couple are "half length") - it's a much more efficient use of paths, and means much less scope for things to go wrong.

Put it another way - look at what happened when Virgin tried doubling the Cross Country frequency with trains that were "half length". Plenty people criticise them for this, but don't make the same conclusion about short trains on the ECML etc.

 

[route:oxford]

Until somebody, other than the government, goes out and orders 10-12 carriage length 140mph diesel or electric sets (possibly from one of the failed bidders) to tear up and down the East Coast or any other suitable line then there is going to be a stock shortage.

When it comes to direct services to/from London I suspect that it is a case of get local media interest and use the ryanair model for pricing.

I'd really like to see First run a joint service between First Scotrail and FGW. Maybe just a couple of times a week. HST - Perth, Stirling, Edinburgh. Non stop down the west coast to Banbury, then Oxford, Reading, London.

 

[bluenoxid]

Since the thread was about links to London, I was talking about that.

However, issues like the crossing at Newark need adressing if we are to tackle capacity properly on this line (if that is what you are referring to).

In fact I was talking about Doncaster and the Scarborough branch and using P4 at Peterborough and crossing at Darlington.

I've always said that we need longer trains rather than more trains. I'd rather we had five long trains from London each hour, than seven trains (of which a couple are "half length") - it's a much more efficient use of paths, and means much less scope for things to go wrong.

Put it another way - look at what happened when Virgin tried doubling the Cross Country frequency with trains that were "half length". Plenty people criticise them for this, but don't make the same conclusion about short trains on the ECML etc.

Crosscountry was not a complete failure. Passenger numbers have rocketed. The additional frequency between Leeds and London has decimated Leeds - London air traffic. Hull Trains has increased the number of people travelling and money moving to East Yorkshire. Connectivity to all areas (including London) are heavily promoted but frequency (clockface timetables (which do use a lot of capacity sell most services))

 

[gingerheid]

Tis a fair point. The new services from the NE have also worse than decimated air travel from other airports in the NE. Teeside and Humberside flights to London didn't last that long, and they went while air travel was still booming!

Separately, it's also worth also mentioning that in these days of demand and yield management you can't just look at current utilisation to see how well demand is being met and whether capacity is being used most efficiently. Two trains might be full, but it might be that train A could be full twice over if they were charging fares comparable to those on train B.

 

[tbtc]

In fact I was talking about Doncaster and the Scarborough branch and using P4 at Peterborough and crossing at Darlington

Fair points, but it'd be impossible to completely grade seperate a 400 (approx)mile railway. Nice, maybe, but impossible.

Crosscountry was not a complete failure. Passenger numbers have rocketed

Passenger numbers are certainly up, significantly in some places, but the capacity each hour didn't really change (improved now with HSTs on some duties, but even so...).

The additional frequency between Leeds and London has decimated Leeds - London air traffic

True, and this has been achieved by running additional trains of the same length (rather than trying to combine little and large (with different speeds), like MML tried at first with Turbostars).

 

[bluenoxid]

It is a real pain in the rear to run a mixed traffic railway but sometimes you just cannot throw an expensive investment at a new route or improved frequency because we cannot prove what the route is going to do in the future. It does restrict some capacity but we would be wiping out many of the benefits if we delivered maximum capacity every time.

It would be similar to saying that every new line built has to be double track, electrified and built with ATC/4 Aspect signalling with three minute headways. it would completely obliterate any plans to develop the network because the investment would not be able to be recuperated in the time required or it would just be completely out of everyones budget.

There have been some pretty obvious mistakes made but hindsight is 20:20 vision.