How would a national regular interval timetable be planned?

[Austriantrain]

I’d go further - what the Swiss wouldn’t have done is built two separate lines into, and two separate stations within, central Sheffield.

Also ... Walsall?

Worksop. Sorry!

 

[Ianno87]

And then there are rural routes where you'd be a lot better forgetting about high minded concepts and focus more on having a good timed arrival in the "town" station. Much more important than a bi-hourly service.

Whitby is a great example- an 08xx arrival benefits far more people (school kids) on a day to day basis than a neat longer distance connection at Middlesbrough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whitby is a great example- an 08xx arrival benefits far more people (school kids) on a day to day basis than a neat longer distance connection at Middlesbrough.

That's a similar one to the Conwy Valley. The Bentham Line is another one.

Generally, if a line operates a low frequency (below hourly) it's better to time each trip for a specific purpose or set of purposes than to just blindly do 2 hourly regular interval or similar. It's hourly and above when Takt starts to have considerable benefit.

That might also simplify staffing, because if you can time breaks in properly you can have staff fully dedicated to the branch which keeps things simple and improves punctuality and reliability. If you just operate something like the Conwy Valley with a dedicated unit and two crew shifts (one earlies, one lates) who do nothing else all day, it's very unlikely for it to end up in a mess, bar Afon Conwy deciding to wash it away again. (FWIW I suspect the present lopping of the early and late round trips may be to get it into a single shift?)

 

[Austriantrain]

However, look at the value and volumes of individual flows and service groups, then it wouldn't win. The entire Takt would instead be built around connections to/from London mainlines, and XC would fit around that, as that in most cases will be the bigger demand.

No, it wouldn’t. It simply would not be feasible - you could never build an integrated Takt that way. The line with the highest amounts of connections and which runs through the major pinch-points gets planned first, then everything around it. It wouldn’t work otherwise, since nothing would connect to anything even though that is precisely the point of a Takt.

And everything would probably revolve around Birmingham New Street, just as German timetables revolve around Frankfurt and French timetables around Lyon Part-Dieu (and not Paris!). Austrian timetables have always centered on Salzburg, although this has now changed since we have a through main station in Vienna.

Absolutely nothing to do with demand; it doesn’t mean of course that the line that gets planned first will have the highest train frequencies (that would still be mainlines from London, of course).

AFAIK - well, I read about it - there were some (low-Level) initiatives for an integrated takt under BR and they centered on New Street and the Bristol - Newcastle XC as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair to the UK, the vast majority of train services are either regular interval or very close to it now. The bit we don't do as well as other European countries is connections, though the importance is reduced in some ways because we instead operate quite high frequencies.

Another nice UK example is of the London-North Wales services connecting with the London-Brum-Scotland services, so you can leave MKC at xx13 and get a slower but single-seat ride, or the following xx40 and connect with it at Crewe for a faster journey with a change. No need to connect it the other way as Brum to North Wales has direct services via Wrexham. Only works northbound, though, sadly.

 

[Austriantrain]

Whitby is a great example- an 08xx arrival benefits far more people (school kids) on a day to day basis than a neat longer distance connection at Middlesbrough.

The Swiss plan school times around train timetables...

 

[Ianno87]

No, it wouldn’t. It simply would not be feasible - you could never build an integrated Takt that way. The line with the highest amounts of connections and which runs through the major pinch-points gets planned first, then everything around it. It wouldn’t work otherwise, since nothing would connect to anything even though that is precisely the point of a Takt.

And everything would probably revolve around Birmingham New Street, just as German timetables revolve around Frankfurt and French timetables around Lyon Part-Dieu (and not Paris!). Austrian timetables have always centered on Salzburg, although this has now changed since we have a through main station in Vienna.

Absolutely nothing to do with demand; it doesn’t mean of course that the line that gets planned first will have the highest train frequencies (that would still be mainlines from London, of course).

AFAIK - well, I read about it - there were some (low-Level) initiatives for an integrated takt under BR and they centered on New Street and the Bristol - Newcastle XC as well.

The Great Eastern main line is a London main line that is timetabled with many principles of a Takt. Look at how branch trains to Sudbury or Harwich happen to be at the 'junction' at the same time as Up and Down trains make simultaneous calls. How Cambridge-Ipswich trains give good north-north connections at Stowmarket and also a second hourly London service with a connection at Ipswich.

I guess that doing a Takt around London main lines benefits the most passengers, but everything else will have to 'get what its given' as a result.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2021 ==

The Swiss plan school times around train timetables...

Good point! Move Muhammad to the mountain rather than vice-versa.

 

[Austriantrain]

The Swiss plan school times around timetables...

Good point! Move Muhammad to the mountain rather than vice-versa.

I have yet to convince my counterparts in other Austrian cities not to start meetings on the full hour, since this is when the train arrives and so I am either late or have to take an earlier train...

Well, since we are not having meetings at the moment, convincing them will take another year or two post-Covid...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2021 ==

The Great Eastern main line is a London main line that is timetabled with many principles of a Takt. Look at how branch trains to Sudbury or Harwich happen to be at the 'junction' at the same time as Up and Down trains make simultaneous calls. How Cambridge-Ipswich trains give good north-north connections at Stowmarket and also a second hourly London service with a connection at Ipswich.

I guess that doing a Takt around London main lines benefits the most passengers, but everything else will have to 'get what its given' as a result.

True, but planned Swiss-Style, the planning would go like this:

The hub at Birmingham New Street determines the XC train schedule at York, which in turn determines the timetable of the ECML train at Peterborough... and so on at Cambridge, Ipswich and thus the London - Norwich timetable (and so even the London - Southend timetable).

Of course, even with a perfect infrastructure compromises would be necessary.

The Swiss have taken 30 years to achieve their timetable, have invested enormous sums of money and geared all their infrastructure investment towards this aim. And the UK rail network is vastly more complex.

As a former DB boss once said about the Swiss: Compared to the German network, the Swiss barely run a nationwide S-Bahn (even more true for Austria of course).

 

[EastisECML]

There are different ways you can do it. One way is that you have a "pulse" time at main stations where everything arrives and departs, so for example you aim for all your trains to arrive between xx55 and xx58, and depart between xx02 and xx05, which is what many Swiss stations are like. That however requires some pretty hefty infrastructure. There are other ways, though, such as looking at what specific connections people are likely to want (and what journeys are already made, both by car and by train), then you can trim it down somewhat, and maybe have 2 or even 4 "pulses" an hour in which different connections meet, or even consider down to individual route level.

To consider the latter, take Lancaster. Let's say we have an hourly Manchester-Lancaster, half of which go to Windermere and half to Barrow. Typically in Switzerland you'd have the through train run fast. But the Windermere would meet an all-stations Barrow (or Cumbrian Coast) service at Lancaster, and the Barrow would meet an all-stations Windermere. And vice versa for heading south. Downside of that is that it's a 2 hour pattern rather than a 1 hour one, but it's still Takt, and indeed many DB regional Takte operate on a 2 hour pattern.

If you want an actual example of that in CH, one example is Winterthur-Konstanz and Romanshorn. The ICs alternate to each, and a local service connecting with the IC going to the other one does, too.

Maybe it'd be easier if we just separated as many lines as possible into self contained lines with high frequencies and keep our fingers crossed the trains meet up on time with each other at key stations?

 

[tbtc]

The other point about XC is that it is a reasonable place to start a timetable from, in a purely timetable sense, as it interacts with the most things, but on the assumption that all services are of equal value.

However, look at the value and volumes of individual flows and service groups, then it wouldn't win. The entire Takt would instead be built around connections to/from London mainlines, and XC would fit around that, as that in most cases will be the bigger demand.

For example, an ECML 'Takt' might be built around connections at Peterbrough, Newark, Doncaster, York, Darlington and Newcastle, with journey times between those points set at multiples of 30/60 minutes.

The way I look at it is that you could write a draft ECML timetable and a draft WCML timetable etc but the XC one is the one that needs to be written first, since everything can slot around it (if that means the flagship London departures are no longer xx:00 but a less memorable time past the hour (because all of the timetable has been shifted a certain number of minutes then so be it).

Whereas XC cross between all the main lines, so a Plymouth to Edinburgh service needs to find paths at Bristol Parkway (GWML)/ Birmingham New Street (WCML)/ Sheffield (MML) and York (ECML) - writing the "main lines" into the timetable first can see the XC service sat at places like Doncaster a long time to get a path on the next main line.

Plus, many fast ECML/ MML/ WCML/ GWML services to London don't need particularly long dwells at any intermediate stations (Leeds/ Manchester/ Liverpool/ Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Birmingham/ Bristol to London), whereas XC services do, given the longer average duration.

I suppose there's also the question of whether we need to be significantly increasing the number of stops at intermediate junctions if we are to focus more on connections - do you slow everything down a little but turn journeys like Doncaster - Peterborough or Rugby - Stafford into several journeys per hour?

 

[BrianW]

Coming from a country where an „integrated Takt“ (in local parlance, a regular Takt is simply a clockface timetable, it is the integration part that really makes the difference) is slowly being put into practice, just a few thoughts.

Out of curiosity, I have started to sketch what an integrated Takt for the UK would look like. Before you start criticizing me - I am perfectly aware that it is just a crayonista exercise and whatever I come up with has zero chance of working in reality. Just see it as my personal Sudoku...

However, some points: starting with the Southwest to Northeast Crosscountry is logical and probably unavoidable, since it connects all major routes from London as well as the Trans-Pennine routes. Places like Birmingham New Street, Sheffield, York etc are logical hubs. If it means that the London to Edinburgh trains leave KX at 17 or 43 past the hour instead of 0 and 30, it doesn’t really matter and will not change the usefulness or attractiveness of these services one bit.

The fact that most journey times between hubs in the UK are not multiples of 30 (journey times just under 30 minutes between hubs would be the perfect precondition for a nationwide Takt with at least a half-hourly interval on every route) is not a problem in itself either. It just means the Takt would not be perfect, but what actually is? Even the Swiss one is not perfect, and they have been building their infrastructure for Takt purposes for the last 30+ years. So you will find better solutions on some routes (eg the accelerated XC schedules Birmingham - Sheffield that run - or used to run pre Covid - a few times a day, which gives a 60 minute journey time between the two cities with Derby at half-Point) and imperfect ones on others... not a huge problem.

What I quickly ran into, however, was limited station and station approach capacity. I am not even starting with New Street... Sheffield is a good example: In a perfect Takt, XC would serve Sheffield exactly around minute 0 and 30, with TPE services built around it, London services arriving a few minutes before XC and local services arriving 10-15 minutes before the “hub“ and leaving 10-15 minutes after „the hour“. I don’t consider it feasible - even though my limited knowledge - to build such a timetable with two-track approaches on both sides and the limited number of platforms - and this is before you think of all the other factors everywhere else, such as London approaches, the Castlefield corridor (for TPE), all those flat junctions etc etc.

Trying to build a real integrated Takt in the UK would therefore most probably require station investments on a very huge scale and over a very long period. The UK network in this regard cannot be compared for instance to the German one (where they are slowly trying to integrate their regular interval timetables), where station and approach capacity are in most - of course not all - cases much higher.

Probably means that focussing on „only“ regular interval timetables (which is of course the reality on most major UK routes anyway, even though not to the same degree as the Swiss) and the most important connections (which is also done anyway) is probably the most realistic and useful way forward for the UK, especially as you focus on very frequent services (if north TPE runs every 15 minutes, perfect connections lose their usefulness as another train will come along shortly anyway).

As I said, just an outside point of view - I hope nobody feels I overstepped the mark.

I last contributed to this thread back in July (#48) and find it interesting to tune in again and see how things have developed.
At risk of saying, I said this then, and knowing how difficult and time-consuming it is to scroll back and read everything, ... 'it's difficult'; you cannot please everyone.
Priorities need to be set.
Someone asked upthread if there is some spreadsheet somewhere that show existing (or pre-Covid) flows/ origin-destination? That would be A start.
Overcrowding would be another- I'm sure I've seen that somewhere at some time. Where?

At this point I remind myself that there are timetablers. I hope they are able to have conversations along these lines rather than just trying to 'iron out' conflicts after the fact. I recognise that the 'issues' on the Castlefield Corridor ought not to have arisen if that was the case, but the current 'Consultation' on improving that situation (by reducing the number of trains) illustrates some of the related 'trade-offs'.

Much as I like the idea of basing timetables around XC, I also recognise the relatively low flow compared with the draw of the 'big smoke', esp if we are heading toward fewer though longer trains to reduce the kind of congestion mentioned above.

Recognising the timetabling problems of everywhere-to-everywhere, and the costs of grade separations, I make this bold suggestion.

One of the, if not the, busiest/ most complicated concentrations how about a Birmingham Central Low Level? It's already difficult with Moor Street/ Snow Hill and there's HS2 Curzon Street to add in. So how about removing some of the congestion to LL. At present entry/ exit is also much mixed up with changers. It's been a long time since Beeching- so time for a more expansionist review. How about some Midlands levelling up?

I understand that if waits are below 15 mins ( 10 best) people will accept changing. Indeed more will travel than previous. So frequency or regular, either will 'do the job'.

For me, neither a Brummie nor Northerner nor Londoner-

1. Regular departures from and to every 'principal (main line?) station' to London.
2. Max 10 min connections into and out of those from 'Level 2' stations.
3. Hourly clockface Xc etc, linking 'top ten' cities by population/ current use (eg Sunderland is big but more likely to travel via Newcastle?)
4. Add in if poss regularity of stops at eg Crewe, Doncaster- not big but important because that's how the Victorians built them.
5. Everywhere to have services that arrive between 8.30 and 9 from the whole of their 'catchment area'.

Remembering I said 'It's difficult'! That's my 'stab'.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Great Eastern main line is a London main line that is timetabled with many principles of a Takt. Look at how branch trains to Sudbury or Harwich happen to be at the 'junction' at the same time as Up and Down trains make simultaneous calls. How Cambridge-Ipswich trains give good north-north connections at Stowmarket and also a second hourly London service with a connection at Ipswich.

Indeed so. That’s what happens when excellent planners write the timetable.

I’d argue that the GA patch is, almost, a self contained network, at least in passenger timetable terms. Yes there’s the freight, Cambridge is a bit tricky and there’s the EM service to worry about, but as long as you leave the freight alone, you can have a fairly free hand with the rest.

That doesn’t make it easy, of course!

 

[Austriantrain]

Indeed so. That’s what happens when excellent planners write the timetable.

I’d argue that the GA patch is, almost, a self contained network, at least in passenger timetable terms. Yes there’s the freight, Cambridge is a bit tricky and there’s the EM service to worry about, but as long as you leave the freight alone, you can have a fairly free hand with the rest.

That doesn’t make it easy, of course!

Even if the UK went the way of an integrated Takt (and as so many pointed out, it is unrealistic), I would strongly suspect that the Southern network and Greater Anglia would always be cases apart and planned differently, since they are in many ways separate networks - and the sheer intensity of train traffic would probably make integrating the timetable with what happens north of London pretty much impossible.

 

[Ianno87]

Even if the UK went the way of an integrated Takt (and as so many pointed out, it is unrealistic), I would strongly suspect that the Southern network and Greater Anglia would always be cases apart and planned differently, since they are in many ways separate networks - and the sheer intensity of train traffic would probably make integrating the timetable with what happens north of London pretty much impossible.

South Western Railway is a good case study. The fast lines out of Waterloo have branches to Weymouth, Portsmouth (2 routes), Salisbury/Exeter, Alton, and is reasonably well-endowed with grade separated junctions. Do you serve fewer 'branches'? Which 'branches' are less deserving?

For example Alton is relatively quiet, but yet is easy to operate to with the grade separation at Pirbright.
Similarly Portsmouth via Guildford is busy, but is constrained by the flat junction at Woking. Should those passengers be reduced to connections for operating convenience (save for building a flyover at Woking)

If you lose a branch, do you still have enough Waterloo trains to meet capacity, or are you just squeezing the network somewhere else instead with more trains carrying on down the main line?

 

[Austriantrain]

@Ianno 87

That is what I meant: even if an integrated Takt was a realistic option for everywhere else, I wouldn’t even start to think about Southwestern, Southern, Southeastern and Great Eastern/Anglia (and the Fenchurch Street services of course).

Solutions and compromises would have to be found for services such as Bristol - Portsmouth or Peterborough - Norwich; I am sure they would be, whereas Thameslink would probably quite severely restrict a perfect long-distance Takt on the MML and the ECML.

To illustrate the last point and again using Sheffield as an example:

In an IT (integrated Takt), XC trains would - just as an example - serve Sheffield at 59/1 (arrival at xx:59, departure at xx:01, in both directions).

With very short headways TP services from Manchester should in an ideal world arrive at xx:56 and services from London at xx:54, so that all connections are possible.

Meaning that services from London would arrive at Derby around xx:22 (and leave from there toward Sheffield at xx:24).

This means that a service from Nottingham could arrive at Derby at xx:20 (again: such a Takt necessitates really short headways, in Switzerland it is routinely 2 minutes on major routes!).

Which would mean that a semi-fast Nottingham-Derby would leave Nottingham at approx xx:57, locking in a „hub time“ at Nottingham around the full hour, which in a Takt is exactly what you want. London services would therefore arrive at Nottingham around the full hour as well.

In effect, MML long-distance schedules would be locked in at the London end as well. It you then start thinking about (AFAIK) up to 8 Thameslink an hour on the MML fast lines, which in turn (at least partly) will also run through East Croydon and the Brighton Main Line.... and then my brain crashes

 

[30907]

@Ianno 87

To illustrate the last point and again using Sheffield as an example:

In an IT (integrated Takt), XC trains would - just as an example - serve Sheffield at 59/1 (arrival at xx:59, departure at xx:01, in both directions).

With very short headways TP services from Manchester should in an ideal world arrive at xx:56 and services from London at xx:54, so that all connections are possible.

Meaning that services from London would arrive at Derby around xx:22 (and leave from there toward Sheffield at xx:24).

This means that a service from Nottingham could arrive at Derby at xx:20 (again: such a Takt necessitates really short headways, in Switzerland it is routinely 2 minutes on major routes!).

Which would mean that a semi-fast Nottingham-Derby would leave Nottingham at approx xx:57, locking in a „hub time“ at Nottingham around the full hour, which in a Takt is exactly what you want. London services would therefore arrive at Nottingham around the full hour as well.

Yes, it can work very neatly if the running times are right.

In practice, though, you don't need to consider all those connections:
Manchester-Sheffield-Derby is important, but Manchester-Sheffield-Burton etc less so, therefore you can make the Derby connection using EMR not XC.times Similarly Nottingham-Derby-Sheffield and Derby-Nottingham-London are not the key connections.

 

[Austriantrain]

Yes, it can work very neatly if the running times are right.

In practice, though, you don't need to consider all those connections:
Manchester-Sheffield-Derby is important, but Manchester-Sheffield-Burton etc less so, therefore you can make the Derby connection using EMR not XC.times Similarly Nottingham-Derby-Sheffield and Derby-Nottingham-London are not the key connections.

Ah, but then you don’t have an integrated Takt Swiss-Style. Derby - Nottingham- London is of course not a relevant connection, but Swiss-Style, having both the Derby and the London trains around the full (or half) hour at Nottingham is essential, because connecting trains towards Mansfield, Newark and Grantham (or through trains to these places) would leave Nottingham a few minutes after the full hour, so you would have connections from anywhere to everywhere.

As I said, not realistic, but that is what a Swiss-Style Takt would be about.