Increased Frequency V Longer Trains: your thoughts

[Llandudno]

Given the ongoing problems regarding finding extra paths through our busiest stations and junctions, not to mention recruiting and training drivers and guards, wouldn’t it be better operating longer trains instead of trying to increase frequencies on some routes?

Surely operating a 6 carriage (or longer) train reliably every 30 minutes is better than attempting to run a shorter train every 15 minutes over certain parts of our congested network?

I appreciate that some stations may require platform lengthening, but could Selected Door Opening be employed?

 

[Esker-pades]

Longer trains are a solution to the capacity problems, but some lines have trains at the maximum length and still have overcrowding problems. Look at the South Western and Brighton Main Lines: most trains are 10-12 coaches and are totally rammed. Trying to find extra paths on these lines is also an utter nightmare.

However, as has been discussed on other threads, a good solution to the TransPennine route is to have longer trains (6 vice 3) rather than struggle to find paths and slowing down a lot of City-City services as a result (look at Hull to Manchester as an example).

 

[Agent_Squash]

It's important to remember that longer trains take longer to cross things like junctions, removing operational flexibility in a manner shorter, more frequent trains don't. That said, you only need to look at Operation Princess to see how it can create more demand than before, making the service even more overcrowded.

 

[Ianno87]

Histroically, BR favoured more frequent trains over longer trains as it was often more economical to operate additional short distance trains on a busy section than operate a longer distance, long length train that may be in excess of the required capacity on the extremes of the route.

Nowadays, frequent trains have the effect of generating revenue, much more so than longer trains.

 

[Llandudno]

I agree that more frequent trains are better and will generate more revenue, however, if the timetable cannot operate reliably with late running, cancellations and missed connections (Northern,) then the public will lose faith in the Railway and revenue could dip?

 

[tbtc]

However, as has been discussed on other threads, a good solution to the TransPennine route is to have longer trains (6 vice 3) rather than struggle to find paths and slowing down a lot of City-City services as a result (look at Hull to Manchester as an example).

If you cut the Leeds - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Manchester services down to (say) four per hour instead of the current six then you'd have the howls of anguish about passengers no longer having a direct hourly service to somewhere over a hundred miles away that might be useful once or twice a year - how do you restrict the combination of Newcastle/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull with Manchester Airport/ Liverpool? Restrict the Manchester Airport service from Newcastle and there'll be complaints from Geordies about the lack of direct service for their annual holiday... but cut the Liverpool service from Newcastle and you'll get complaints from Scousers about how their city has unfairly lost most of its longer distance services since privatisation.

you only need to look at Operation Princess to see how it can create more demand than before, making the service even more overcrowded.

True - Operation Princess showed that increased frequencies are a huge attraction for making services look more appealing - simply adding an extra carriage or two to existing trains doesn't have the same marketing boost.

Histroically, BR favoured more frequent trains over longer trains as it was often more economical to operate additional short distance trains on a busy section than operate a longer distance, long length train that may be in excess of the required capacity on the extremes of the route

Good point - hence the five coach 800/801/802s for Hereford etc, rather than running a 260m train all the way to the western terminus - you could argue that XC need 200m trains on the core but that's a lot of wasted capacity at Penzance etc. Tricky.

 

[jayah]

Around London you are already at maximum length and frequency in the peak. Hence the only solution is schemes like Crossrail, much to the chagrin of various northern politicians who think they are being hard done by.

Outside London, pretty much universally, more customers can be carried by running the same frequency but longer. 3-4 cars is not full length. Sadly even with the new rolling stock orders, we see little evidence of this changing with 2/3/4 car stock on order for a number of franchises along with higher frequencies on loss making services.

There is also a failure to plan timetables properly. The current method is to stuff more and more undersize trains through a bottleneck, compliant with the rules, and upon the resulting performance meltdown, declare an urgent need for £bn of public investment in upgraded infrastructure to sort it out.

Contrary to popular opinion it is the infrastructure not the train drivers which are the main part of the industry cost base. A loss making industry should not be further expanding its scale by building more tracks, switches and other expensive / high overhead items unless there is an absolute need.

In London peak train loads are in the high hundreds and the fares are astronomical, but this is not true elsewhere.

 

[Class 170101]

ORCRATs is the reason. The more trains you run the more money an operator gets.

As Operation Princess discovered running more frequent but shorter trains generates more demand rather than one longer train per hour. So whilst yes there may be howls of protest in certain places about loss of direct connections it would be better to run longer trains more reliably rather than lots of shorter ones unreliably. Additionally the longest trains are only needed at the core route sections so it may be possible to provide one train to two different destinations (split / join as appropriate) but that in itself does bring risks of performance delays that need to be proactively managed.

 

[Caleb2010]

And selective door opening is ineffective if the stock isn't able to!

The problem of capacity does need addressing, certain area's of the country could do with a complete recast of the timetable to cater for increased off peak and weekend travel. But careful what is wished for, I'm sure given the latest shambles the idea of recasting timetables is dead, that leaves strengthening - without any stock to strengthen with, not forgetting that what there is has to be compatible with what you have!

 

[theironroad]

Under the WlikinsonGrayling2020 plan, there will be a maximum of 2 trains per day between any two destinations on commuter routes. Each train will consist of 30 coaches.

#peskystaffingproblemsorted

 

[swaldman]

As a passenger, provided there is no overcrowding I would usually prefer more frequent trains to longer ones.

On metro services, somewhere around 4tph there's a change between "turn up and go" and "look at the timetable ahead of time" which affects usage.
On longer distance services with a moderately high frequency it matters less (I probably don't care whether there are 1 or 2 tph for a trip to another part of the country)
Once frequencies get much lower, it matters again: The difference between 4 trains/day and 2 trains/day is significant in planning my day, whether it's possible to do a given journey all in one day, and so forth.

So on that basis, I'd usually prefer (for example) a 4-car train every hour to a 12-car train every 3 hours, as it offers me more flexibility. BUT: If there's one thing that we should have learned from the Crosscountry franchise (which did pretty much exactly this change when they introduced the Voyagers), it's that while having lots of shorter trains offers more flexibility, one of them will inevitably be at the more convenient time, and have the majority of passengers cramming on to it. So although the same total number of carriages travel the route in the same time in these two scenarios, they are not equivalent in terms of effective capacity, and a greater number of shorter trains is more likely to give overcrowding.

Of course, in an ideal world we'd have lots of long trains....

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Depends what it is that you're trying to achieve.

The reality is that more frequent trains will just cause more demand. If you meet current (or slightly increasing) demand with longer trains then it sorts things out and doesn't create the added infrastructure pinch.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As a passenger, provided there is no overcrowding I would usually prefer more frequent trains to longer ones.

On metro services, somewhere around 4tph there's a change between "turn up and go" and "look at the timetable ahead of time" which affects usage.
On longer distance services with a moderately high frequency it matters less (I probably don't care whether there are 1 or 2 tph for a trip to another part of the country)
Once frequencies get much lower, it matters again: The difference between 4 trains/day and 2 trains/day is significant in planning my day, whether it's possible to do a given journey all in one day, and so forth.

So on that basis, I'd usually prefer (for example) a 4-car train every hour to a 12-car train every 3 hours, as it offers me more flexibility. BUT: If there's one thing that we should have learned from the Crosscountry franchise (which did pretty much exactly this change when they introduced the Voyagers), it's that while having lots of shorter trains offers more flexibility, one of them will inevitably be at the more convenient time, and have the majority of passengers cramming on to it. So although the same total number of carriages travel the route in the same time in these two scenarios, they are not equivalent in terms of effective capacity, and a greater number of shorter trains is more likely to give overcrowding.

Of course, in an ideal world we'd have lots of long trains....

If we assume an 8 car train runs every hour with 400 people aboard and a capacity of 480, and an annual growth of 5%, it would be 4 years before you have 6 standees and need one extra coach.

When you have two 4 car trains every hour and this sudden improvement causes an annual growth to begin with of some 20% due to modal shift and then a 5% growth, your 400 people split in two and capacity of 240 + 240 is overcome within one year and you now have your 5% growth so standees already exist.

Whilst I haven't a clue if this is the reality of CrossCountry, I suspect it's pretty close. Whilst we should strive to have a better Intercity service, it isn't right to take the 8 coaches we had behind 47s and split that in half and assume it would all be great...

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

If I had to take a guess, I'd say more frequent trains would be a better solution than longer trains. With the former you would spread demand for trains out, but then the timetable would need to run to plan if efficiency was to ever be achieved. The latter might allow more people onto a train, but some platforms can barely take some trains and selective door opening would require passengers for certain destinations to sit in certain parts of the train. If a lot of people are going to one destination in the middle of the line, some coaches would be crammed more than others.

Ultimately, each has their pros and cons. However, sometimes both isn't enough, such as in the case of the WCML. Even with sixteen Class 390 Pendolinos running in and out of Euston an hour, the majority still had to be lengthened to eleven coaches, and even now it sometimes isn't enough. You have a case now where there are plans to build an entirely new line just to free up capacity. London is pretty much at capacity at this point alone, which is why you're getting HS2 and Crossrail Projects. I doubt it'll be the end of it as well, I reckon there will be more to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Under the WlikinsonGrayling2020 plan, there will be a maximum of 2 trains per day between any two destinations on commuter routes. Each train will consist of 30 coaches.

#peskystaffingproblemsorted

Ever been to India and seen operations there? The above could certainly be said with a straight face, believe it or not!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal take is that local services benefit from very high frequencies (but still need long-enough trains), while regional express and InterCity trains have a "sweet spot" at half hourly with properly planned connections, which is essentially how SBB works in Switzerland.

 

[DaiGog]

On North TPE I would argue that 4 express trains per hour is adequate. Perhaps two doing Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester and the other two also calling at Dewsbury and Stalybridge. Which ones go to which extensions at either end can be argued another time (and undoubtedly has been already!)

These four trains would be 6-car for now, with some converting to mostly single 5-car Hitachi things when they arrive. A semi-fast would be a useful addition to the timetable, something like York - Church Fenton - Garforth - Leeds - Batley - Dewsbury - Mirfield - Huddersfield - Marsden - Greenfield - Stalybridge - Guide Bridge (for South Manchester connections) - Piccadilly - Airport. With a bit of infrastructure work I'm sure you could then thread in an hourly all stations Manchester - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Leeds.

On the more general point of what passengers find useful, clockface timetabling is also a factor. In the above example, Leeds to Dewsbury could be xx:00 and xx:30 (for illustrative purposes) for the fast services - if the two are evenly spaced, like it always used to be, then people will remember what time they depart but they will also know that if they miss one, there is a stopper and a semi-fast they can catch as a back-up. Leeds to Huddersfield, and Leeds to Manchester, would still be pretty much turn-up-and-go on a '4 expresses plus 1 semi fast per hour' schedule (along with the stopper for Huddersfield customers). However, if, at the end of the day, capacity (availability of seats) is not an issue, the regular travelling majority will live with whatever frequency is provided as long as it could be termed at least relatively frequent.

 

[Mikey C]

In general I prefer more frequency, though this can cause issues when passenger flows are "lumpy" and you end up with vast numbers of people trying to cram on a short train, causing it to be delayed, and the one behind relatively empty

 

[northwichcat]

There isn't one solution fits all.

I'd say overall it's better for a local service to be frequent over long. If you commute to a place 10 miles away waiting 60 minutes for a train makes the train unattractive unless by chance the timings are convenient for your needs. However, in that instance once you get to a train every 15 minutes the benefits of more frequent services are fewer - I doubt anyone would give up using the car because the frequency is increased to every 12 minutes.

If it's like the Virgin Pendolino services where the train is significantly faster than the car then long is better than frequent.

 

[pdeaves]

In addition to everything else already said, bear in mind that once a train reaches a certain length, passengers (generally) don't use all the on board space available. I've seen loads of examples where the majority squeezes into a certain number of carriages and the ones at the back are almost empty. If the walk up the platform (and potentially back again at the destination) it too long, people don't bother (or in some cases can't). Where the destination is somewhere very important (e.g. London) passengers want to be nearer the front than the rear for (perceived) fast getaway.

 

[DaiGog]

There isn't one solution fits all.

However, in that instance once you get to a train every 15 minutes the benefits of more frequent services are fewer - I doubt anyone would give up using the car because the frequency is increased to every 12 minutes.

Agreed - especially when departures at 00/15/30/45 past the hour become something like 00/12/19/38/47 if it can't be made to work on an even headway with the one additional train per hour.

 

[Bantamzen]

On North TPE I would argue that 4 express trains per hour is adequate. Perhaps two doing Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester and the other two also calling at Dewsbury and Stalybridge. Which ones go to which extensions at either end can be argued another time (and undoubtedly has been already!)

These four trains would be 6-car for now, with some converting to mostly single 5-car Hitachi things when they arrive. A semi-fast would be a useful addition to the timetable, something like York - Church Fenton - Garforth - Leeds - Batley - Dewsbury - Mirfield - Huddersfield - Marsden - Greenfield - Stalybridge - Guide Bridge (for South Manchester connections) - Piccadilly - Airport. With a bit of infrastructure work I'm sure you could then thread in an hourly all stations Manchester - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Leeds.

On the more general point of what passengers find useful, clockface timetabling is also a factor. In the above example, Leeds to Dewsbury could be xx:00 and xx:30 (for illustrative purposes) for the fast services - if the two are evenly spaced, like it always used to be, then people will remember what time they depart but they will also know that if they miss one, there is a stopper and a semi-fast they can catch as a back-up. Leeds to Huddersfield, and Leeds to Manchester, would still be pretty much turn-up-and-go on a '4 expresses plus 1 semi fast per hour' schedule (along with the stopper for Huddersfield customers). However, if, at the end of the day, capacity (availability of seats) is not an issue, the regular travelling majority will live with whatever frequency is provided as long as it could be termed at least relatively frequent.

The problem with the North TP is that from an infrastructural point of view it is simply inadequate to cope with anything other than a few long distance & stoppers along it's core. What you suggested is pretty much what was in play prior to the May timetable, and whilst it was more robust it still had its fair share of problems. What is needed is lot of the improvements long discussed previously on other threads, electrification, more passing points, faster speeds etc. And even with some / all in place, getting robust enough pathing through the core for both fast and stopping Leeds-Manchester will be a challenge, which is why I think the stoppers need splitting at Huddersfield. And that along with growing demand will mean more / longer platforms will be needed there too.

Clockface timings would be nice, however realistically you need to give as much space as possible between a stopper & fast setting off at either end to make the timetable as robust as possible, otherwise even small delays to the former will see the latter getting delayed. Personally I would give the stoppers back to Northern, and let TPE concentrate on the longer distance trains pretty much as they were as they will have stock more conducive for high frequency stoppers than TPE do & will have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In addition to everything else already said, bear in mind that once a train reaches a certain length, passengers (generally) don't use all the on board space available. I've seen loads of examples where the majority squeezes into a certain number of carriages and the ones at the back are almost empty. If the walk up the platform (and potentially back again at the destination) it too long, people don't bother (or in some cases can't). Where the destination is somewhere very important (e.g. London) passengers want to be nearer the front than the rear for (perceived) fast getaway.

Reservations tend to solve that. I find people spread out very well along 11-car Virgin Pendolinos despite these being the longest domestic daytime passenger trains in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - especially when departures at 00/15/30/45 past the hour become something like 00/12/19/38/47 if it can't be made to work on an even headway with the one additional train per hour.

Indeed, memorable frequencies boost usage. A train every hour at the same time every hour is to me preferable to one every 45 minutes, say. The concept has proven itself well on Merseyrail where you basically just have to remember the base time, then add 30 for early morning/late evening/Sunday for the other one, or add 15 as needed for weekday daytime.

 

[DaiGog]

The problem with the North TP is that from an infrastructural point of view it is simply inadequate to cope with anything other than a few long distance & stoppers along it's core. What you suggested is pretty much what was in play prior to the May timetable, and whilst it was more robust it still had its fair share of problems. What is needed is lot of the improvements long discussed previously on other threads, electrification, more passing points, faster speeds etc. And even with some / all in place, getting robust enough pathing through the core for both fast and stopping Leeds-Manchester will be a challenge, which is why I think the stoppers need splitting at Huddersfield. And that along with growing demand will mean more / longer platforms will be needed there too.

Clockface timings would be nice, however realistically you need to give as much space as possible between a stopper & fast setting off at either end to make the timetable as robust as possible, otherwise even small delays to the former will see the latter getting delayed. Personally I would give the stoppers back to Northern, and let TPE concentrate on the longer distance trains pretty much as they were as they will have stock more conducive for high frequency stoppers than TPE do & will have.

Indeed, the timetable pre-May largely worked - it had additional capacity in the form of 2x185 6-car sets in most of the places where they were needed. That has gone now, with the transfer of the stopper to TPE. It wasn't clockface but apart from that, it worked OK once it bedded in. Give the stoppers back to Northern, split them once more at Huddersfield so they don't cause chaos on the whole route when things run late, and enable TPE to do more doubling up where it's needed.

 

[Journeyman]

At one point in the sixties, BR was proposing just one train a day from London to Manchester, with 20 coaches!

 

[GW43125]

Reservations tend to solve that. I find people spread out very well along 11-car Virgin Pendolinos despite these being the longest domestic daytime passenger trains in the UK.

A 10-car 80x is now the longest, at 260m compared to an 11-car Pendolino in the region of 250m. However I’ve found there’s often busy sections and quiet sections.

 

[Mikey C]

A 10-car 80x is now the longest, at 260m compared to an 11-car Pendolino in the region of 250m. However I’ve found there’s often busy sections and quiet sections.

The 10 car 80X of course has the massive problem of being 2 * 5 cars, so there can be uneven loading between the 2 halves, whereas on the Pendolino people do walk through the whole train to find seats

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed, the timetable pre-May largely worked - it had additional capacity in the form of 2x185 6-car sets in most of the places where they were needed. That has gone now, with the transfer of the stopper to TPE. It wasn't clockface but apart from that, it worked OK once it bedded in. Give the stoppers back to Northern, split them once more at Huddersfield so they don't cause chaos on the whole route when things run late, and enable TPE to do more doubling up where it's needed.

I'd certainly support a rollback of this part of the timetable, of course subject to Northern being able to take back the routes without too much impact elsewhere. The split at Huddersfield is essential because the stoppers even when skipping stops can't help but cause the fasts to trip over them at the first sign of a delay. And with the MKV stock now going into testing, as they roll out onto the route even more remaining services running as 185s could be doubled up until the 802s start to land. Even the South TP might benefit sooner than it might have done!

 

[tbtc]

On North TPE I would argue that 4 express trains per hour is adequate. Perhaps two doing Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester and the other two also calling at Dewsbury and Stalybridge. Which ones go to which extensions at either end can be argued another time (and undoubtedly has been already!)

These four trains would be 6-car for now, with some converting to mostly single 5-car Hitachi things when they arrive. A semi-fast would be a useful addition to the timetable, something like York - Church Fenton - Garforth - Leeds - Batley - Dewsbury - Mirfield - Huddersfield - Marsden - Greenfield - Stalybridge - Guide Bridge (for South Manchester connections) - Piccadilly - Airport. With a bit of infrastructure work I'm sure you could then thread in an hourly all stations Manchester - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Leeds

It sounds like you are wanting to replace the current six trains per hour on Leeds - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Manchester with six trains per hour (i.e. four trains per hour plus a semi-fast plus a stopper)?

I think TPE would be a good place for people to demonstrate their trade-off between longer trains and frequency, since you've got to balance a lot of different markets (some of which might be symbolic rather than essential for daily passengers, but will cause a lot of negative publicity if you remove them).

Some people want very fast services (I've even seen the suggestion of non-stop through Huddersfield, to provide more seats for longer distance passengers), some people want a stopper through Marsden etc (for the sake of the Ale Train), some people want as many trains from Leeds to Manchester as possible.

A 10-car 80x is now the longest, at 260m compared to an 11-car penis in the region of 250m. However I’ve found there’s often busy sections and quiet sections.

Predictive Text?