Ideas for alternative railway projects

[The Planner]

Well I worked with someone recently in Cov who lived in Wolverhampton. There was another guy who lived in brum. They would not touch the stoppers with a bargepole, they went for the virgins or x country.

I'm confused now, earlier you said you wanted all station stoppers but now say no one will touch them?

 

[Ken H]

I'm confused now, earlier you said you wanted all station stoppers but now say no one will touch them?

stoppers are for pax from berkeswell, Tile Hill, Lea Hall and Stetchford. When i commuted using marston Green, i dodnt expect seni fasts to stop there. its a minor station and the stops at lea hall, Stetchford and Adderley pk were part of using a minor station.
Passengers from beyond international can change at international if they dont want all the stops.
The current timetable is perverse, set up to benefit the operators, not the passengers.

 

[Esker-pades]

stoppers are for pax from berkeswell, Tile Hill, Lea Hall and Stetchford. When i commuted using marston Green, i dodnt expect seni fasts to stop there. its a minor station and the stops at lea hall, Stetchford and Adderley pk were part of using a minor station.
Passengers from beyond international can change at international if they dont want all the stops.
The current timetable is perverse, set up to benefit the operators, not the passengers.

My emphasis.

What on earth does that actually mean?

 

[Bald Rick]

The current timetable is perverse, set up to benefit the operators, not the passengers.

I know the guys who wrote this timetable. One of them is on these pages sometimes. They absolutely do care about passengers. On a network with restricted capacity, you have to set the timetable that will maximise the benefit to the maximum number of passengers. This timetable does that, and was devised with very careful consideration for the journeys made on the corridor.

I’d challenge you to write a better timetable for a standard hour, but there’s no point because you won’t be able to!

 

[The Planner]

stoppers are for pax from berkeswell, Tile Hill, Lea Hall and Stetchford. When i commuted using marston Green, i dodnt expect seni fasts to stop there. its a minor station and the stops at lea hall, Stetchford and Adderley pk were part of using a minor station.
Passengers from beyond international can change at international if they dont want all the stops.
The current timetable is perverse, set up to benefit the operators, not the passengers.

768,000 people in 2017/18 for Marston Green is not a small number. 679th in the usage list out of just over 2500 stations. And the statement about benefiting the operators I concur with @Bald Rick , you are not going to get a lot better.

 

[DarloRich]

The current timetable is perverse, set up to benefit the operators, not the passengers.

No it isnt.

What on earth does that actually mean?

It means : I don't like the current timetable and think it should be changed to suit me above all others.

I know the guys who wrote this timetable. One of them is on these pages sometimes. They absolutely do care about passengers. On a network with restricted capacity, you have to set the timetable that will maximise the benefit to the maximum number of passengers. This timetable does that, and was devised with very careful consideration for the journeys made on the corridor.

I’d challenge you to write a better timetable for a standard hour, but there’s no point because you won’t be able to!

768,000 people in 2017/18 for Marston Green is not a small number. 679th in the usage list out of just over 2500 stations. And the statement about benefiting the operators I concur with @Bald Rick with, you are not going to get a lot better.

Chaps - you are using facts again. Please stop.

 

[Ken H]

I know the guys who wrote this timetable. One of them is on these pages sometimes. They absolutely do care about passengers. On a network with restricted capacity, you have to set the timetable that will maximise the benefit to the maximum number of passengers. This timetable does that, and was devised with very careful consideration for the journeys made on the corridor.

I’d challenge you to write a better timetable for a standard hour, but there’s no point because you won’t be able to!

i am not slagging off the timetable blokes. Im saying small incremental infrastructure improvements may make their jobs, and the operators jobs easier, and produce a more robust and customer friendly product.

BR understood the elasticity of time vs revenue. If someones train home it timetabled for 32 minutes, but 2 days a week its held at New st for a fast train to leave, so it takes 42 minutes, then in his head the journey takes 42 minutes. So he may well consider another mode.
The trouble is in the fragmented railway, Network Rail make the investment, but the TOC get the revenue boost. And in our example, the WM PTE will also have a say.

 

[Bald Rick]

But, as explained above, on the Cov corridor there aren’t any small incremental infrastructure improvements that would make the timetabling guys jobs any easier. Those that did exist have been done (Proof House Junction, Birmingham International layout changes, resignalling the whole corridor).

As it happens the people who plan the timetables are in the same team as the people who do the long term infrastructure and service planning. And also in the same team are those who do all the economic modelling and understand (in some detail) the demand elasticities (time, cost, frequency, crowding, etc etc).

 

[PR1Berske]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.

Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.

Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains?

Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.

I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.

This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.

Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.

All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

Although you are a touch excitable I see a lot of merit in what you are arguing. It is true that billions are being spent across very small parts of the rail network while the vast majority see almost nothing. There are regional branch lines which would be recognisible to our Victorian forbears so little has been spent!

And you are absolutely right that government prefers "big ticket items". That's why MPs don the Hi Viz jackets to point at HS2 groundworks rather than going to, say, Blackpool North or Rhyl to look at how the railways really work. They want congratulation at spending billions, not a limp handshake from a provincial mayor.

What we should have - and I hope the Williams review plus HS2 review acknowledges this - is a big fat red reset switch pressed. Just pause everything and re-evaluate what the railway is for, and who it is supposed to serve.

So yes, that would mean admitting that HS2 is, broadly speaking, a waste of money and that, actually, putting just a percentage of that into electrification schemes up North would help more people, more quickly.

 

[Meerkat]

Does that mean we also close loads of pointless stations and a few branches that are more suitable for buses than trains (hi Conwy Valley!)

 

[6Gman]

And you are absolutely right that government prefers "big ticket items". That's why MPs don the Hi Viz jackets to point at HS2 groundworks rather than going to, say, Blackpool North or Rhyl to look at how the railways really work. They want congratulation at spending billions, not a limp handshake from a provincial mayor.

So yes, that would mean admitting that HS2 is, broadly speaking, a waste of money and that, actually, putting just a percentage of that into electrification schemes up North would help more people, more quickly.

Er, you do know that the line to Blackpool North has been electrified? "More quickly" than HS2 ...

And isn't Rhyl on a line that's seen significant investment in resignalling?

 

[6Gman]

What we should have - and I hope the Williams review plus HS2 review acknowledges this - is a big fat red reset switch pressed. Just pause everything and re-evaluate what the railway is for, and who it is supposed to serve.

I have a lot of sympathy with this idea. So long as they put me - or somebody equally sensible - in charge.

It was tried before. Using a chap named Beeching.

Was rather controversial as I recall.

BUT pressing the "pause everything" button would be bad news for Bombardier in Derby, and other suppliers.

 

[6Gman]

So yes, that would mean admitting that HS2 is, broadly speaking, a waste of money and that, actually, putting just a percentage of that into electrification schemes up North would help more people, more quickly.

Good article in the current Modern Railways explaining why more capacity on the South WCML cannot be provided by tweaking the timetable. (Even by more intelligent timetabling, or terminating them in different places.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Good article in the current Modern Railways explaining why more capacity on the South WCML cannot be provided by tweaking the timetable. (Even by more intelligent timetabling, or terminating them in different places.)

What, you mean that ‘smart timetabling’ isn’t the solution?

 

[Ianno87]

Although you are a touch excitable I see a lot of merit in what you are arguing. It is true that billions are being spent across very small parts of the rail network while the vast majority see almost nothing. There are regional branch lines which would be recognisible to our Victorian forbears so little has been spent!

I'd hardly describe 300-odd miles of new main line railway (nor the benefit of released capacity on many hundreds of miles more) "small". Then multiply that by the passengers that benefit.

What we should have - and I hope the Williams review plus HS2 review acknowledges this - is a big fat red reset switch pressed. Just pause everything and re-evaluate what the railway is for, and who it is supposed to serve.

It's to support the UK economy. Which is a mix of putting capacity where it is needed (HS2) *and* supporting economic growth (smaller schemes).

So yes, that would mean admitting that HS2 is, broadly speaking, a waste of money and that, actually, putting just a percentage of that into electrification schemes up North would help more people, more quickly.

A) OK, HS2 Phase 1/2 is basically shovel ready, so can be open in 2027/2028ish - or 8 years or so.

Manchester-Preston electrification was announced in 2010 and completed (from scratch in 2018. Or 8 years or so. And ask Boltonians about non-existent weekend rail services for 18-24 months in the process.

Stopping HS2 now will not make one jot of difference to other schemes (which will be starting from scratch) appearing faster...nor is it either/or.

B) Lots of the money for HS2 will be borrowed, paid back against future revenues (direct or indirect). No HS2 meams no money. The notion that cancelling HS2 frees up money for other schemes is not true.

 

[Ianno87]

Good article in the current Modern Railways explaining why more capacity on the South WCML cannot be provided by tweaking the timetable. (Even by more intelligent timetabling, or terminating them in different places.)

I agree a good article.

In all seriousness @PR1Berske please read it and come back here and critique it.

 

[markymark2000]

What would help increase capacity on the south WCML? Without going off 'more tracks' sort of discussion, what projects could be done within the current railway land to provide more capacity?

 

[Bald Rick]

What would help increase capacity on the south WCML? Without going off 'more tracks' sort of discussion, what projects could be done within the current railway land to provide more capacity?

Aside from lengthening trains to maximum length, nothing. Assuming you want to keep broadly the same level of frequency / connectivity at stations south of Rugby.

The article in Modern Railways explains it well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would help increase capacity on the south WCML? Without going off 'more tracks' sort of discussion, what projects could be done within the current railway land to provide more capacity?

You could do something extreme like:
- All trains 12-car (though that would render some Euston platforms unusable)
- Slow line service every 2-3 minutes peak, every 5-10 minutes off peak, all trains all stations a la Tube
- 2tph non-stop to Ledburn then all stations
- 1tph Trent Valley fast line to MKC
- VT unchanged

However, I suspect it wouldn't be very popular and it would be incredibly expensive due to the stock and staff needed.

Realistically, more 12-car trains is the best that can be done, and that will be done when the Aventras turn up (OK, 10x24m, but that's the same ) The other possibility is to change the stock to be more like Crossrail which would be less comfortable but have higher standing capacity, but again very unpopular.

 

[Ken H]

What would help increase capacity on the south WCML? Without going off 'more tracks' sort of discussion, what projects could be done within the current railway land to provide more capacity?

wont a flying junction at Roade help? get down trains to Northampton without having to cross the up fast.

 

[The Planner]

You could do something extreme like:
- All trains 12-car (though that would render some Euston platforms unusable)
- Slow line service every 2-3 minutes peak, every 5-10 minutes off peak, all trains all stations a la Tube

No chance of 2 minute intervals without ETCS. 3 on the slows is probably do-able.

wont a flying junction at Roade help? get down trains to Northampton without having to cross the up fast.

Nothing is timetabled to do that, Ledburn has been suggested for a flyover for many years as that is where the crossing moves take place.

 

[Ken H]

No chance of 2 minute intervals without ETCS. 3 on the slows is probably do-able.


Nothing is timetabled to do that, Ledburn has been suggested for a flyover for many years as that is where the crossing moves take place.

dont the 'fasts' to northampton use the fast pair. they must cross to the slows somewhere? MKC?
I thought the slows were for the all stations trains and freight. Virgin and semi fasts use the fast tracks.

 

[The Planner]

dont the 'fasts' to northampton use the fast pair. they must cross to the slows somewhere? MKC?
I thought the slows were for the all stations trains and freight. Virgin and semi fasts use the fast tracks.

MK, go into P5 and cross over there. There are a couple of up trains that cross at Hanslope but they are only crossing the Down Northampton so not an issue.

 

[Bald Rick]

wont a flying junction at Roade help? get down trains to Northampton without having to cross the up fast.

Not at all. As it happens there are only a handful of trains each day booked to cross fasts - new line or vice versa at Hanslope Jn. Basically one an hour in the Up direction, where the conflict is with the 3-6tph heading on the down slow, and therefore easily scheduled. In the down direction the move is done at MK once an hour, where it uses P5 to get out of the way of the following Manchester, and then slots right behind the passing up Blackpool / ‘extra’ path that exists on the Up fast, with 5 minutes to spare before the Up Liverpool.

None are a capacity constraint, because of stopping patterns etc. Were a flyover to be provided it will help remove the small amount of delay caused when there is a conflicting move, which is relatively small in the scheme of things. But no capacity.

 

[The Ham]

So many people appear so excited over Crossrail, High Speed 1 and High Speed 2.

Personally, I believe that the billions of pounds involved would have been better spent giving the country a 21st Century railway network the entire nation would be proud of.

Upgrading every inch of existing track and signals to European TGV-type standards allowing high speed operation on all main lines with provision for possible future high speed running on what are now branches.

What is the problem with converting the miles and miles of double track running through open countryside to four track, allowing fast trains to overtake semi-fast trains?

Nationwide overhead electrification would also prevent the need for electric trains to be dragged along a diversionary route by a diesel locomotive.

I don't agree with minor routes being doomed for all eternity to diesel powered units unable to operate at more than 50mph because of the track not being able to safely accommodate higher speeds.

This massive network wide upgrade would include the procurement of a brand new fleet of trains of just two types, one for long distance use and one for local use.

Such an upgrade could surely have been carried for the same cost as the two projects currently in progress and the one proposed.

All three projects are vanity projects allowing the government to brag about how wonderful its rail network is while hiding the fact that 95% of the rail network has not been substantially upgraded since the last century.

Crossrail, we'll have to see, however has the potential to move a lot of people around quite a large geographical area. Yes mostly within London, however it does stretch further out and bring benefits beyond the M25.

High Speed 1, had resulted in a lot of people not wanting to fly to France. I know someone who loves aircraft and they now choice to go to France by Eurostar! Yes the predictions were off, but that's mostly due to the starting of low cost airlines which significantly changed the goalposts.

High Speed 2, is predicted to have broadly the same number of passengers as the whole TGV network, but have just 1/3 the rail miles. Predictions are looking like they are going to be wide of the mark, however that's because rail growth has out performed by quite some margin.

There continues to be money being spent on other rail projects, something like £25bn since 2009 (not including maintenance, new trains, HS2 and not a lot on Crossrail) by Network Rail.

Are you sure that 95% of the railway had remained unchanged in the last 20 years:
- much of the GWML is now significantly electrified
- there's been electrification inother locations including Scotland and the North of England
- Chiltern Line has seen changes through the Evergreen projects
- SWML has seen 3rd rail power upgrades and new signals
- WCML has been upgraded
- Birmingham New Street had been upgraded, as have other stations
- Waterloo has more platforms available for SWR services
- Thameslink

I'm sure others could fill in more details and more schemes. Yes some don't result in obvious changes, however even things like allowing the user of longer trains may not result in obvious changes but do provide an uplift in capacity.

Anyway define a substantial upgrade and why should we be looking to those and not other upgrades which may not look so impressive but provide the extra capacity which we need.

As an example we could create a 4 track railway asking much of the rural WofE line, the problem is that it wouldn't allow many extra services as they would only be able to get as far as, at best, Basingstoke or Exeter Central (assuming that the existing stations in built up areas also don't act as a capacity constraint, which the likes of Salisbury almost certainly would) before there was little or no space to run them further on the existing lines. The same would be true for more 4 tracking around Winchester and Swindon, in that there's not the space for more services into the major urban areas beyond the immediate area.

 

[markymark2000]

Aside from lengthening trains to maximum length, nothing. Assuming you want to keep broadly the same level of frequency / connectivity at stations south of Rugby.

The article in Modern Railways explains it well.

I can't seem to find the article. Do you have a link or is it magazine only?

You could do something extreme like:
- All trains 12-car (though that would render some Euston platforms unusable)
- Slow line service every 2-3 minutes peak, every 5-10 minutes off peak, all trains all stations a la Tube
- 2tph non-stop to Ledburn then all stations
- 1tph Trent Valley fast line to MKC
- VT unchanged

However, I suspect it wouldn't be very popular and it would be incredibly expensive due to the stock and staff needed.

Realistically, more 12-car trains is the best that can be done, and that will be done when the Aventras turn up (OK, 10x24m, but that's the same ) The other possibility is to change the stock to be more like Crossrail which would be less comfortable but have higher standing capacity, but again very unpopular.

With the Tring services generally having flows of passengers heading one way or another, would it be possible to scrap the Tring half hourly service and put the paths to better use as part of a longer distance service and have a few existing services pick up extra stops. More so given not many people travel locally between stops on the Tring service and actually travel into or from Euston. Wembley Central could be dropped as well with it being covered by the West London Line service and the Overground.

Alternatively, is Euston the issue with the Overground being contained to the 2 platforms and running so frequently.

I do really think that it would be good to go down the original Southern idea of multiple destinations, one train and split when out of the 'throat' as though it causes issues with the coupling/uncoupling, it does provide more capacity though the main areas and provide more links in the outer areas.

 

[Ianno87]

I can't seem to find the article. Do you have a link or is it magazine only?



With the Tring services generally having flows of passengers heading one way or another, would it be possible to scrap the Tring half hourly service and put the paths to better use as part of a longer distance service and have a few existing services pick up extra stops. More so given not many people travel locally between stops on the Tring service and actually travel into or from Euston. Wembley Central could be dropped as well with it being covered by the West London Line service and the Overground.

Alternatively, is Euston the issue with the Overground being contained to the 2 platforms and running so frequently.

I do really think that it would be good to go down the original Southern idea of multiple destinations, one train and split when out of the 'throat' as though it causes issues with the coupling/uncoupling, it does provide more capacity though the main areas and provide more links in the outer areas.

Works on the Southern as the Main Line diverges into multiple branches.

Doesn't work on the WCML suburban service where the first branch isn't until Rugby.

(Incidentally, the original Dec 2008 Saturday timetable did feature an hourly LM Euston-Crewe & Birmingham service splitting at Northampton. Problem is both routes easily justify 8 car trains in isolation these days no splitting/joining would deprive one or other of adequate capacity)

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't seem to find the article. Do you have a link or is it magazine only?

I assume it’s in their online edition, but you have to subscribe to that. It’s in the current magazine, available in all good newsagents.