Limited stop trains

[HSTEd]

Time spent waiting on a station is no better, and in many cases worse than time spent on a train.

Frequency is all.

 

[bramling]

To be fair sometimes you can time infrequent services to be useful. I have in the past suggested an alternative Conwy Valley timetable which reduces the number of round trips from the usual 6 to 5, but timing those 5 to be useful for specific needs. But that doesn't work the same way if you're just going to put "fast every 2 hours, stopper every 2 hours" or somesuch.

This is the thing - if they’re there, people will use them.

A good example is the GN fast Peterborough services (which run on top of the half-hourly TL service). In the normal timetable they run in the peak flow, some evening runs out of London, and some early evening runs into London which are mainly to get the stock back, but are very useful for shift workers or people going for an evening out.

Most of the extras aren’t running at the moment, and there’s quite a lot of disgruntlement about it. Many people most certainly planned around them where practicable.

 

[RailWonderer]

Isn't this effectively a peak extra? Which is a different game entirely, and not needed for the Westcountry.

It was a peak extra but since September reintroduction they just removed the Diss call from the 17:00 down so passengers for that station have to change at Ipswich. They did the same with the morning up train but not sure which one they removed extra calls from. Either way it's better than slowing down GE trains for those crack expresses.
Having had to use Westbury a couple of times the service gaps are so that you have to go via Bath to return to London but those stations are more geared for regional travel than IC travel.

 

[BayPaul]

To be fair sometimes you can time infrequent services to be useful. I have in the past suggested an alternative Conwy Valley timetable which reduces the number of round trips from the usual 6 to 5, but timing those 5 to be useful for specific needs. But that doesn't work the same way if you're just going to put "fast every 2 hours, stopper every 2 hours" or somesuch.

True, but that's a rather different case to fast crack expresses. A journey planner search for the Conwy valley will always find whatever is on the timetable. If you put a fast express train onto the Berks and Hants at say 15:00, then you aren't going to know that theres a fast option if you search for a train at 12:00, which is how most people plan their journeys.
Saying that, there are some opportunities, particularly early morning and late evening, and these certainly should be taken. For example, a fast service to get into London early could leave Devon before the start of the more intense service on the Devon Metro, so taking advantage of this extra spare capacity, and giving people an extra 10 minutes in bed sounds like an excellent idea, though this does rely on having somewhere for it to go at the London end (the only answer I could think of would be having 5 carriages running fast from Plymouth to Taunton, and there attaching to 5 that have stopped at Ivybridge, Totnes, Newton A, Teignmouth, Exeter and Tiverton)

This is the thing - if they’re there, people will use them.

A good example is the GN fast Peterborough services (which run on top of the half-hourly TL service). In the normal timetable they run in the peak flow, some evening runs out of London, and some early evening runs into London which are mainly to get the stock back, but are very useful for shift workers or people going for an evening out.

Most of the extras aren’t running at the moment, and there’s quite a lot of disgruntlement about it. Many people most certainly planned around them where practicable.

I don't deny that they are good to have if possible, just that the opportunity cost is often too high, as they come at the expense of several semi-fast trains on 2 track railways. On 4 track lines, where there are already fast services, such as Peterborough, this isn't an issue, as the extra train just needs to slot in between two others that run at a similar speed.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think any stopping pattern not worth doing at least hourly is really worth doing.

And even then I am not sold on the usefulness of stopping patterns not done half hourly or better.

 

[43096]

I don't think any stopping pattern not worth doing at least hourly is really worth doing.

And even then I am not sold on the usefulness of stopping patterns not done half hourly or better.

So in your world there’s no point bothering with the West Highland, Far North, Stranraer etc.?

 

[Jim the Jim]

I think on balance I prefer it when trains stop reasonably often; it relieves the boredom and gives you a bit longer to look at stations as you go through.

It is nice when you have an empty seat next to you and you know it's not going to be filled for some time though.

 

[HSTEd]

So in your world there’s no point bothering with the West Highland, Far North, Stranraer etc.?

From an actual bulk public transport perspective, no there isn't.

You might make an argument for tourism on the west highland, and social necessity on the Far North or Stranraer (although at this point they are so much slower than the bus that I don't really buy it), but mostly railways are bulk public transport systems. With emphasis on bulk

 

[Bletchleyite]

From an actual bulk public transport perspective, no there isn't.

You might make an argument for tourism on the west highland, and social necessity on the Far North or Stranraer (although at this point they are so much slower than the bus that I don't really buy it), but mostly railways are bulk public transport systems. With emphasis on bulk

I think whether the railway already exists is probably relevant. You wouldn't build the Far North, the West Highland, the Conwy Valley etc if they weren't already there. But as they are the cost of running them should be little more than the costs of running a bus service.

By contrast, if the WCML didn't exist we would already have advanced plans to build it.

 

[Shrop]

Are people *that* time sensitive?

People are unbelievably time sensitive! Surely you’ve been in a car and seen the drivers who jostle for position in a motorway queue, in the apparent belief that moving one vehicle further up the queue really saves a worthwhile amount of time. Or when they block junctions, or when they skip red lights, or tailgate others. So yes, a great many people are time-sensitive, often stupidly so.

So why mention cars? Well perhaps these are the very people who refuse to use railways because the precious seconds they think they can save by sitting in traffic queues and jostling for position really are worth it, and taking longer than they want to on trains is something they just won’t entertain.

People who know anything about economics and time savings will know that when you’re talking about millions of people as in the UK travelling public, there is a lot of marginal value (ie mode transfer potential) in saving a few minutes here and there. It’s nothing like as simple as blandly assuming that the odd few minutes to stop at an extra station (or several) won’t prevent people taking rail journeys.

 

[edwin_m]

People are unbelievably time sensitive! Surely you’ve been in a car and seen the drivers who jostle for position in a motorway queue, in the apparent belief that moving one vehicle further up the queue really saves a worthwhile amount of time. Or when they block junctions, or when they skip red lights, or tailgate others. So yes, a great many people are time-sensitive, often stupidly so.

So why mention cars? Well perhaps these are the very people who refuse to use railways because the precious seconds they think they can save by sitting in traffic queues and jostling for position really are worth it, and taking longer than they want to on trains is something they just won’t entertain.

People who know anything about economics and time savings will know that when you’re talking about millions of people as in the UK travelling public, there is a lot of marginal value (ie mode transfer potential) in saving a few minutes here and there. It’s nothing like as simple as blandly assuming that the odd few minutes to stop at an extra station (or several) won’t prevent people taking rail journeys.

People who are time-sensitive will probably want to travel at a specific time, not wait around for one of three or four trains a day that happens to be faster. So the benefit of this concept is mainly for those who value making fewer stops for its own sake, or if it avoids a crowding issue. The concept is sort of valid for people who aren't time-sensitive or much bothered about what time they travel but don't like changing trains, which is why Cross Country includes extensions a few times a day off the end of its hourly or half-hourly core routes.

Transport economics includes the concept of "generalised journey time", which includes average waiting time and gives it a greater weighting than time in the vehicle. This has been shown to be a good predictor of the attractiveness of a service, and often indicates that a more frequent but slightly slower service is more attractive.

 

[IanXC]

Of course the recent failed ECML consultation was an attempt to do exactly this. Hourly LNER 'crack express' calling Kings Cross - York (alternate hours) - Newcastle - Edinburgh was proposed, and the net result at the far end was seemingly unacceptable impacts on local journeys.

At the risk of going off topic I would suggest that those between Newcastle and Edinburgh have been broadly solved by the addition of the TPE stopper, reduction in calls at Darlington will probably be solved with the new layout as it should reduce the time penalty enough, but that still leaves the question of Retford - Newark - Grantham connectivity.

 

[221129]

I'm sure XC's ticket sales from Wakefield to York and beyond, or Derby and beyond, are miniscule.

You would be very surprised.

 

[peteb]

On the Cross Country Bristol to Birmingham axis there has been and still is the opportunity to take an XC voyager northbound to overtake the slower northbound GWR service via Gloucester, then change at Cheltenham for Worcester. Very useful if the stopper is missed at Temple Meads. I did that route for many years. I'd welcome something similar north of Birmingham to permit faster Birmingham to Newcastle timings, without the need to change.

 

[Shrop]

People who are time-sensitive will probably want to travel at a specific time, not wait around for one of three or four trains a day that happens to be faster.

That's pure speculation. A lot of people simply don't want to spend their time travelling, they want to be doing things other than being stuck in traffic queues, or stopping at yet another station they don't want to visit. But everyone is different, this matters more to some than others, the crux being that there are plenty to whom it does matter, who are marginal rail travellers, where too much waiting tips the balance against using the train.

Of course the recent failed ECML consultation was an attempt to do exactly this. Hourly LNER 'crack express' calling Kings Cross - York (alternate hours) - Newcastle - Edinburgh was proposed, and the net result at the far end was seemingly unacceptable impacts on local journeys.

And as for the hourly "crack express" which was proposed to call at York on alternate hours, and otherwise non-stop to Newcastle, these are distances of 188 and 268 miles, and you're talking about either zero or one stops. My first mention was Plymouth to Birmingham, which is 218 miles, and this can't be done with less than EIGHT stops. It's not comparable with London to Newcastle. And I reiterate, if there are unacceptable impacts on local journeys then we need to be looking at additional track, which of course would also benefit freight.

 

[221129]

To use part of the OPs original example, using data from a train today between Plymouth and Bristol.
Plymouth: 22
Totnes: 14
Netwon Abbot: 13
Exeter: 25
Tiverton: 13
Taunton: 31

So instead of the train carrying a reasonable 118 people, the OP would rather it carry 47. Not worth running it at all then, especially by taking out the biggest station by passenger numbers... The stops are even more justified if we include people getting off at these stations. Frequent standard timetables are key.

The CrossCountry route, whether people agree with it or not is a primarily regional TOC in the South West.

Of the above people, the following amount of people were travelling beyond Birmingham.
Plymouth: 2
Totnes: 1
Netwon Abbot: 2
Exeter: 3
Tiverton: 2
Taunton: 2

 

[YorksLad12]

You would be very surprised.

Then... surprise me. Verily.

 

[Shrop]

To use part of the OPs original example, using data from a train today between Plymouth and Bristol.
Plymouth: 22
Totnes: 14
Netwon Abbot: 13
Exeter: 25
Tiverton: 13
Taunton: 31

So instead of the train carrying a reasonable 118 people, the OP would rather it carry 47. Not worth running it at all then, especially by taking out the biggest station by passenger numbers... The stops are even more justified if we include people getting off at these stations. Frequent standard timetables are key.

The CrossCountry route, whether people agree with it or not is a primarily regional TOC in the South West.

Of the above people, the following amount of people were travelling beyond Birmingham.
Plymouth: 2
Totnes: 1
Netwon Abbot: 2
Exeter: 3
Tiverton: 2
Taunton: 2

This is a very small sample, and where is the survey of potential rail users if the service was faster?

 

[edwin_m]

That's pure speculation.

So is this entire thread. What isn't is the demand modelling and other factors that have led to the stopping patterns we have today, and the extreme difficulty superimposing extra fasts in the timetable without big expenditure on infrastructure or compromising the service in other ways.

I'm out of here.

 

[6Gman]

And I reiterate, if there are unacceptable impacts on local journeys then we need to be looking at additional track, which of course would also benefit freight.

What additional track? Where and to what purpose?

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately the reason the XC service is so slow is not because of large numbers of stations, which doesn't matter much with modern units, its because the infrastructure is simply awful.

With new infrastructure even the current Plymouth-Glasgow stopping pattern could be done in under five hours, although obviously at astronomical capital expense.

 

[dciuk]

To use part of the OPs original example, using data from a train today between Plymouth and Bristol.
Plymouth: 22
Totnes: 14
Netwon Abbot: 13
Exeter: 25
Tiverton: 13
Taunton: 31

So instead of the train carrying a reasonable 118 people, the OP would rather it carry 47. Not worth running it at all then, especially by taking out the biggest station by passenger numbers... The stops are even more justified if we include people getting off at these stations. Frequent standard timetables are key.

The CrossCountry route, whether people agree with it or not is a primarily regional TOC in the South West.

Of the above people, the following amount of people were travelling beyond Birmingham.
Plymouth: 2
Totnes: 1
Netwon Abbot: 2
Exeter: 3
Tiverton: 2
Taunton: 2

These figures point towards what I have always thought - the only advantage of removing the Totnes and Newton Abbot stops would be to speed up journeys to Plymouth as it is irrelevant to all other journeys and if the figures quoted here are typical Totnes and Newton Abbot combined is greater than the passenger numbers from Plymouth. In fact without the Totnes and Newton Abbot stops would it even be worth running the service from Plymouth? If not that would leave Plymouth passengers having to use another service which would probably still stop at Totnes and Newton Abbot (and perhaps also other stops such as Ivybridge, Teignmouth and Dawlish) and would then mean a change at Exeter where the minimum connection time is 6 minutes, even if the connection was timed perfectly with would make the Plymouth journey slower and add the inconvenience of a change of train. In the core there are advantages of having longer distances between stations, which is mainly what happens (such as running from Cheltenham to Birmingham non stop) but when you get to the edges of the network it seams to me those smaller stations could be what makes the service viable. Most services on the Plymouth-Totnes-Newton Abbot and also Exeter-Tiverton-Taunton are provided by the long distance Paddington or Cross Country services with only a handful of local services. You could run more local services, but for what advantage? - Just for someone to sit on an almost empty train for almost an hour and shave a few minutes off their journey time?

 

[Starmill]

So in your world there’s no point bothering with the West Highland, Far North, Stranraer etc.?

Girvan - Stranraer most definitely isn't worth bothering with. Unlike the others it has basically no tourist potential, and serves a tiny population but requires miles of expensive infrastructure. The service was improved in 2015 but this didn't generate the hoped for increase in ridership, so it significantly worsened the financial case, which is now on a par with the Far North as the worst in Scotland. It is too hilly to be converted to battery operation, which Stranraer - Girvan could be. Close it now and have done, spending the opex savings protecting other Scottish lines with negative financial cases. Of course for purely political reasons this simply won't happen.

 

[Shrop]

These figures point towards what I have always thought - the only advantage of removing the Totnes and Newton Abbot stops would be to speed up journeys to Plymouth as it is irrelevant to all other journeys and if the figures quoted here are typical Totnes and Newton Abbot combined is greater than the passenger numbers from Plymouth. In fact without the Totnes and Newton Abbot stops would it even be worth running the service from Plymouth? If not that would leave Plymouth passengers having to use another service which would probably still stop at Totnes and Newton Abbot (and perhaps also other stops such as Ivybridge, Teignmouth and Dawlish) and would then mean a change at Exeter where the minimum connection time is 6 minutes, even if the connection was timed perfectly with would make the Plymouth journey slower and add the inconvenience of a change of train. In the core there are advantages of having longer distances between stations, which is mainly what happens (such as running from Cheltenham to Birmingham non stop) but when you get to the edges of the network it seams to me those smaller stations could be what makes the service viable. Most services on the Plymouth-Totnes-Newton Abbot and also Exeter-Tiverton-Taunton are provided by the long distance Paddington or Cross Country services with only a handful of local services. You could run more local services, but for what advantage? - Just for someone to sit on an almost empty train for almost an hour and shave a few minutes off their journey time?

Yes, I get what you're saying and I'm not disputing the benefits of serving intermediate stations, but my argument has always been that there are additional benefits to be gained by having occasional faster services. But using the numbers of passengers on existing services is an inadequate measure of the potential market for faster services, and citing Plymouth is very limited, I just happened to use it as an example. Southampton to Birmingham might be better, stopping only at Basingstoke (for connections from Portsmouth), and Oxford. This could provide an Oxford to Birmingham service taking under an hour, and missing out Reading would save the need for reversing, as well as providing a perfect opportunity to overtake slower trains. This could run just 3 or 4 times a day, but would provide much needed capacity, as well as a faster service.

 

[cle]

Yes, I get what you're saying and I'm not disputing the benefits of serving intermediate stations, but my argument has always been that there are additional benefits to be gained by having occasional faster services. But using the numbers of passengers on existing services is an inadequate measure of the potential market for faster services, and citing Plymouth is very limited, I just happened to use it as an example. Southampton to Birmingham might be better, stopping only at Basingstoke (for connections from Portsmouth), and Oxford. This could provide an Oxford to Birmingham service taking under an hour, and missing out Reading would save the need for reversing, as well as providing a perfect opportunity to overtake slower trains. This could run just 3 or 4 times a day, but would provide much needed capacity, as well as a faster service.

Is this service viable without Reading though, is the point?

Is a Plymouth service viable without Totnes and Newton Abbot? Or Cornwall on the other side..? Not really - it's not a huge place in terms of rail usage. Population aside, it's a fairly remote/insular/self-sufficient economy there. 2m is not much. Compare it to Norwich, another big regional fish in a small pond, which is double the size. It's odd as Plymouth is not a Bradford or a Sunderland - overlooked by a more prosperous neighbour.

 

[30907]

Yes, I get what you're saying and I'm not disputing the benefits of serving intermediate stations, but my argument has always been that there are additional benefits to be gained by having occasional faster services. But using the numbers of passengers on existing services is an inadequate measure of the potential market for faster services,

Yes, but it's a rough guide as to where you might concentrate your efforts.

Southampton to Birmingham might be better, stopping only at Basingstoke (for connections from Portsmouth), and Oxford. This could provide an Oxford to Birmingham service taking under an hour, and missing out Reading would save the need for reversing, as well as providing a perfect opportunity to overtake slower trains. This could run just 3 or 4 times a day, but would provide much needed capacity, as well as a faster service.

If you add it onto the base service, yes (though I'm not sure I'd miss Reading).

 

[BayPaul]

Yes, I get what you're saying and I'm not disputing the benefits of serving intermediate stations, but my argument has always been that there are additional benefits to be gained by having occasional faster services. But using the numbers of passengers on existing services is an inadequate measure of the potential market for faster services, and citing Plymouth is very limited, I just happened to use it as an example. Southampton to Birmingham might be better, stopping only at Basingstoke (for connections from Portsmouth), and Oxford. This could provide an Oxford to Birmingham service taking under an hour, and missing out Reading would save the need for reversing, as well as providing a perfect opportunity to overtake slower trains. This could run just 3 or 4 times a day, but would provide much needed capacity, as well as a faster service.

It wouldn't add any additional capacity that couldn't be added more simply and cheaply by lengthening the existing services.
And it would be a colossal amount (I suspect several billions) of infrastructure cost (would require 4-tracking from Coventry-New Street for a start) for 3-4 times per day. If its worth doing, why not run hourly?

 

[Shrop]

It wouldn't add any additional capacity that couldn't be added more simply and cheaply by lengthening the existing services.
And it would be a colossal amount (I suspect several billions) of infrastructure cost (would require 4-tracking from Coventry-New Street for a start) for 3-4 times per day. If its worth doing, why not run hourly?

Coventry to New Street needs doing anyway, even without any XC services, but XC services not serving Coventry can go via Solihull.

 

[BayPaul]

Coventry to New Street needs doing anyway, even without any XC services, but XC services not serving Coventry can go via Solihull.

Would there really be capacity to run fast from Aynho all the way to New Street non-stop without getting in the way of something else? I think you'd jsut be moving the issue.
I entirely agree that Cov-New Street needs to be done

 

[The Planner]

Coventry to New Street needs doing anyway, even without any XC services, but XC services not serving Coventry can go via Solihull.

No it doesn't, HS2 solves that. Both XC will go via Coventry in the future.