Double/Triple length inter city trains to reduce path usage

[smsm1]

With several twitter threads of people complaining about intercity trains being full to overflowing especially with the Edinburgh Festival being on Twitter, I've wondered if it would be possible to join 2 or more long intercity trains together and run them as a single train using only one path?

Could join them a short distance outside the mainline terminal. Some of the through platforms at Edinburgh are probably long enough for a double length train, however would site on the crossover in the between the platforms, unless they were to be separated.

Intermediate stations could be an issue, however could run some direct services if there's enough demand. Alternatively only having half the train stop at intermediate stations, however it would be overlapping other routes/points outside the station.

There's probably also an issue of power. Could the overhead cables and nearby power stations cope with the extra train load in such a short space?

 

[gordonthemoron]

well Virgin could certainly do without using 5 coach Voyagers on Scotland-Euston services via Birminghan

 

[smsm1]

I suppose it raises the other question of is the west coast mainline having a similar issue of people standing. Could demand on the East Coast Mainline be nudged to use the West Coast Mainline. Could some trains to Glasgow be diverted to Edinburgh to increase capacity that way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

well Virgin could certainly do without using 5 coach Voyagers on Scotland-Euston services via Birminghan

Only very few services are 5-car, but it would be good to get them some more EMUs so they could cease running 5-car sets entirely, other than west of Chester.

Regarding TPE I am of the view that they should reduce the number of paths used but portion-work. Same with Barrow/Windermere. I would be in favour of a ban on trains shorter than 6 x 23m through the Manchester Castlefield core - short DMUs are a waste of paths there.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Only very few services are 5-car, but it would be good to get them some more EMUs so they could cease running 5-car sets entirely, other than west of Chester.

Regarding TPE I am of the view that they should reduce the number of paths used but portion-work. Same with Barrow/Windermere. I would be in favour of a ban on trains shorter than 6 x 23m through the Manchester Castlefield core - short DMUs are a waste of paths there.

The fact you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more of a good idea. The problem is just the same as highlighted in this very thread: platform lengths at intermediate stations on just about all routes. For sure it sucks but we are where we are. And then you have the bean counters who don't like train fleets being big enough to cope with every surge in demand. It's going to take a seismic change in politicians attitudes to transport in general to bring about meaningful change. [/sighs resignedly]

 

[AndrewE]

They do this in places like Russia, where journeys might take days and the long distance railways are often built around freight needs: very long sections of single track and then passing loops a mile or two long. With relatively low passenger-train speeds it doesn't matter if you stop in a yard outside the terminus to couple up two or three more trains, each one the maximum length of the terminus platforms.
I did once wonder whether it could be done here, but our railway is rather different!

 

[6Gman]

Only very few services are 5-car, but it would be good to get them some more EMUs so they could cease running 5-car sets entirely, other than west of Chester.

Or, indeed, east of Chester!

A few more 221s and a few more 11car 390s would be good, but undeliverable.

We are back to the privatisation-era issues of specialist, non-compatible stock and tight specifications which are fixed for years.

 

[Bald Rick]

The issue with paths is, usually, not on the plain track intermediate bits, but in the busy areas, ie stations and particularly at the termini. Running two trains out fo the termini that have to be joined up someonwehre en route doesn’t solve that issue. Also the longer trains would use up more than one path when travelling through any slow speed junctions - particularly at each end of the journey.

 

[krus_aragon]

A few more 221s and a few more 11car 390s would be good, but undeliverable.

We are back to the privatisation-era issues of specialist, non-compatible stock and tight specifications which are fixed for years.

It's concievable that, with the 222s released from EMT expected to go to XC, they might be able to release a few of their 221s back to the West Coast franchise. That's unfounded speculation on my part, of course.

Virgin's (Super)Voyagers have operated in triple formation in the past, on "blockade busters" diverting to Marylebone, iirc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more of a good idea. The problem is just the same as highlighted in this very thread: platform lengths at intermediate stations on just about all routes.

So get building extensions, then. If you can stick 80m on the entire set of platforms on the south WCML (as was done in the mid 2000s), you can stick a far shorter extension (as would be needed) on platforms in the North. That or implement ASDO, which has been done successfully on the GWML local stations. And don't do numpty things like ordering short DMUs with no gangways.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

So get building extensions, then. If you can stick 80m on the entire set of platforms on the south WCML (as was done in the mid 2000s), you can stick a far shorter extension (as would be needed) on platforms in the North. That or implement ASDO, which has been done successfully on the GWML local stations. And don't do numpty things like ordering short DMUs with no gangways.

Agreed. Some piecemeal extending has been happening but that is only to allow all of just 3 or 4 vehicles to be fully accommodated when 6 is what is needed to allow for future growth (and then your Castlefield "ban" could be implemented!). But this is Northern we're talking about!

As for ASDO although it's really just a sticking-plaster solution it does have merit. What it really needs is passenger information displays next to the doors informing intending alighting passengers when a particular set of doors will not be unlocked at the next stop and an indication of which way to move down the train to reach a suitable door. I'm not aware of any ASDO system having such a feature even though in IT terms it should be easy to do.

To come back on topic it's worth noting that the lengthening of many Pendolinos to 11-car did see platform extensions being added to various WCML stations but some are now completely maxed out in length due to track/signal positions or bridges. Those who regularly travel on railtours, many of which reach 12 carriages in length, will know that stations capable of "hosting" a decent photographic stop are few and far between. It seems the relatively cramped nature of our stations somewhat reflects the wider geographical situation of the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for ASDO although it's really just a sticking-plaster solution it does have merit. What it really needs is passenger information displays next to the doors informing intending alighting passengers when a particular set of doors will not be unlocked at the next stop and an indication of which way to move down the train to reach a suitable door. I'm not aware of any ASDO system having such a feature even though in IT terms it should be easy to do.

The only place I've seen that done is the LU S-stock, though some mainline stock has it on the PIS display.

 

[tbtc]

With several twitter threads of people complaining about intercity trains being full to overflowing especially with the Edinburgh Festival being on Twitter, I've wondered if it would be possible to join 2 or more long intercity trains together and run them as a single train using only one path?

There are limits to how flexible the railway can be to accommodate things like the Festival (keeping stock "spare" for the sake of August would be quite the luxury... diverting some Anglo-Glasgow services to Edinburgh would cause much gnashing of teeth in western Scotland... ).

There are also the problems of very long trains taking longer at clearing junctions etc (and which services could be operationally coupled together - presumably not a 350 tagged onto a 221...)

I certainly agree that the WCML service can be a bit awkward for Edinburgh journeys (as the majority of services are to Glasgow, as the Edinburgh services are a combination of the VT Birmingham ones and the TP Manchester ones you can be waiting over an hour at Preston/ Carlisle for an Edinburgh service... whilst the fast London - Glasgow trains get full length 390s, the Edinburgh services can be a five coach 221 and then a four coach 350 over an hour later).

If there's a relatively "simple" way of improving the journey options for WCML - I'd suggest stopping some of the Birmingham/ Manchester - Glasgow services at Carstairs (and some of the XC services from Glasgow to Edinburgh at Carstairs too, complementing the current Ayr - Central - Carstairs - Waverley services run by ScotRail), thus providing many more opportunities for Anglo-Edinburgh journeys at relatively minimal cost (compared to the infrastructure costs and power supply issues that running significantly longer trains would require). There'd obviously be a time penalty for stopping services at Carstairs - sort of like the "leaf fall" season that adds in an extra couple of minutes on some routes in the Autumn, but for the month fo August on services up the WCML instead!

Without turning this into a thread about how everything was perfect in BR days (because it wasn't!), at least back in the days of loco-hauled services, you could trim a carriage of various "commuter" routes and tag them onto some "holiday" routes in the six weeks of school summer holidays - which would make the demand for things like the Edinburgh festival easier to manage - much harder to do that with multiple units though - whilst I accept the EMU/DMU world that we live in, there are times where I accept the benefits of flexibility that a loco-hauled environment would offer at times like this.

 

[30907]

Without turning this into a thread about how everything was perfect in BR days (because it wasn't!), at least back in the days of loco-hauled services, you could trim a carriage of various "commuter" routes and tag them onto some "holiday" routes in the six weeks of school summer holidays - which would make the demand for things like the Edinburgh festival easier to manage - much harder to do that with multiple units though - whilst I accept the EMU/DMU world that we live in, there are times where I accept the benefits of flexibility that a loco-hauled environment would offer at times like this.

An interesting thought - whole commuter sets got used for weekend duties to the coast, but I don't think that was common practice with odd vehicles: I've skimmed some 50s carriage workings on the SR, and there's no sign of that. This may be because there was plenty of "spare" stock around.

 

[The Planner]

With several twitter threads of people complaining about intercity trains being full to overflowing especially with the Edinburgh Festival being on Twitter, I've wondered if it would be possible to join 2 or more long intercity trains together and run them as a single train using only one path?

Could join them a short distance outside the mainline terminal. Some of the through platforms at Edinburgh are probably long enough for a double length train, however would site on the crossover in the between the platforms, unless they were to be separated.

Intermediate stations could be an issue, however could run some direct services if there's enough demand. Alternatively only having half the train stop at intermediate stations, however it would be overlapping other routes/points outside the station.

There's probably also an issue of power. Could the overhead cables and nearby power stations cope with the extra train load in such a short space?

Not sure how it solves anything at all. Regardless of the power and length issues, you still need the first train to leave the station then stop at a point somewhere afterwards. The second train can only leave on what the signalling headway is, then slow down and stop prior to the first train, couple up and then get going again. The time that will take you might as well just let the first train go with the second following it as you have wasted at least a path in getting through that rigmarole.

 

[AndrewE]

Not sure how it solves anything at all. Regardless of the power and length issues, you still need the first train to leave the station then stop at a point somewhere afterwards. The second train can only leave on what the signalling headway is, then slow down and stop prior to the first train, couple up and then get going again. The time that will take you might as well just let the first train go with the second following it as you have wasted at least a path in getting through that rigmarole.

Not if the infrastructure allowed 2 or 3 multi-trains to do it in parallel...
...but Bald Rick's point in post #8 about junction and platform occupation further down the line still holds though, unless each goes down a different branch with the capacity to hold, split and then platform 3 trains in parallel.

 

[The Planner]

Not if the infrastructure allowed 2 or 3 multi-trains to do it in parallel...
...but Bald Rick's point in post #8 about junction and platform occupation further down the line still holds though, unless each goes down a different branch with the capacity to hold, split and then platform 3 trains in parallel.

How does that make a difference? in train planning terms it doesn't release a path on the line you are joining trains up on.

 

[AndrewE]

How does that make a difference? in train planning terms it doesn't release a path on the line you are joining trains up on.

Obviously not, which is why I said "If the infrastructure allowed."
You would need groups of platforms, each group feeding into an attaching loop from which your super-length trains would subsequently depart. The set-up would need to be mirrored at the destination too, unless you were using a marshalling yard or a very long platform at a junction station to split your trains.
E.g. Basford Hall yard or platform 6 at Crewe to send off successive portions for Manchester, Preston (fast line) and Liverpool (slow line.)