Limited stop trains

[BayPaul]

Once again my comments have been taken out of context. As I've already said, this was one train that I happened to find, out of many. The fact that it wasn't reliable is not relevant to any discussion.

Except that the reason it was unreliable was, I strongly suspect, because its path was so tight, because it was trying to fit a different stopping pattern in on the line.

So you're suggesting that ALL trains from London to Newcastle and Edinburgh, should stop at all of those intermediate stations? That is the comparison ...

I think that you are taking us out of context here as well. The general point that most of us are making here is that the best use of capacity on 2 track lines is to have a reasonably consistant stopping pattern. On a 4 track railway, the ideal is to have 2 stopping patterns, one fast and one slow, and so on. Anything else will reduce capacity. It is, of course, reasonable to have a compromise, and trade off some capacity for mixed stopping pattern, but, on our crowded railways, we are pretty much at the optimum compromise position right now. Adding in extra fast services often means the removal of several slow services. HS2 is a good example of how to solve this issue. Effectively it's a 6 tracking of the WCML, and will allow a 3rd stopping pattern to run - fast trains take HS2, slow trains take the slow lines, and the current fast lines will be mainly used for semi-fast services. Unfortunately HS2 doesn't directly benefit the South West, but it gives a good idea of the level of investment needed to do the job properly. Admittedly our lines aren't quite as busy as the WCML, so you could probably get away with intermittent new high speed bypasses to allow overtaking, but really saving a few minutes from missing a couple of stops isn't going to shift many people onto the rails, a proper time saving is needed.

Personally, I hope that HS2 is such a massive success, and transforms the way that we do business in the UK, that there is a rapid move to build more high-speed lines to serve other parts of the country, and we end up with several sub-hour trains per hour from Bristol and the SW to Birmingham and beyond

 

[stuu]

There were quite a few GWR trains non-stop between Exeter St Davids and Reading until 2019. No more, but at least all of the fast trains are now fast between Taunton and Reading.

As a long time Taunton resident and train traveller, I don't agree. There was one a day which didn't stop in 2018, there were two a day for a period but that is all in the past decade.

 

[Starmill]

As a long time Taunton resident and train traveller, I don't agree. There was one a day which didn't stop in 2018, there were two a day for a period but that is all in the past decade.

It was the 'Cornish Riviera' and the 'Royal Duchy' that didn't call there. The latter then started calling on the Up but still not the down. There was also a summer iteration where the 'Cornishman' didn't stop on the down.

The whole point is that standardisation on better all-day journey times removed the "two or three per day" market which is under discussion here.

I'm not convinced that some of those who post have that depth of understanding

I think that, reading the contributions, everyone understands very well what you would like. It's just that you're mistaken that it would be of net benefit.

Timetable development has moved very firmly in the opposite direction over the past couple of decades - faster trains can run all day on a regular repeating pattern now on several routes, and that is all to the good. The tiny handful of trains which were offering a very slightly better journey time have had to be withdrawn as a result.

You argue that your 'faster handful' of trains per day would be able to be supported by many billions of pounds worth of new infrastructure. But you don't address how that new infrastructure will be value for money if it is only going to be used for a small number of daily services.

 

[BayPaul]

In many ways @Shrop you are asking for too little to be supported. If you were to be arguing the case for building a Dawlish avoiding line, electrifying all the way to Plymouth, and investing in raising the speed on the lines from Reading and Bristol to Devon up towards 125 or higher, I think you'd get a lot more support, including from me. Doing that lot would be (very) expensive, but it would give a much bigger improvement in journey time to every train, whilst allowing the existing calls to be kept, and increasing capacity. For example, Reading to Taunton is 107 miles, and takes around 1h15 non-stop. If linespeed could be increased to 125 throughout, you'd save around 20 minutes, without removing a single stop.

 

[stuu]

It was the 'Cornish Riviera' and the 'Royal Duchy' that didn't call there. The latter then started calling on the Up but still not the down. There was also a summer iteration where the 'Cornishman' didn't stop on the down.

The whole point is that standardisation on better all-day journey times removed the "two or three per day" marlet which is under discussion here.

I know, I was taking issue with the idea that there have in recent times been quite a few non stopping Taunton.

I completely agree with the idea of standardised services - no intercity route has less than an hourly service these days, which is much more useful in general than a few faster trains

 

[Starmill]

It would most definitely be easier to build a business case for improvements between Taunton and Reading which can save a few minutes here and there, but on an hourly service carrying large numbers. The trouble, as always, is that the easiest places to save time have already been exploited, so you're left with the more difficult and thus costlier ones. All the same I'd like to think there's scope there to save a few minutes with £1 billion or so. And you might actually realistically get the capex to do that post 2024.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know, I was taking issue with the idea that there have in recent times been quite a few non stopping Taunton.

I completely agree with the idea of standardised services - no intercity route has less than an hourly service these days, which is much more useful in general than a few faster trains

With regard to Cornwall, one thing you could consider doing is running pairs of 5-car 80x from Paddington to Exeter, then splitting, with one calling all stations to Penzance and one doing only key stations (and vice versa the other way, with them joining to continue to London). You'd need to consider which stations each called at to ensure loadings balanced, though, and would lose the benefit of 2tph at the Exeter end. A separate Exeter or Paignton service could serve the more local stations (as indeed is the case now). But you'd need more 80x and the HSTs would be no use.

 

[Starmill]

I know, I was taking issue with the idea that there have in recent times been quite a few non stopping Taunton.

OK, so maybe "quite a few" was the wrong form of words for me to choose to describe up to four services per day but your summary was also wrong.

 

[cle]

I may be misunderstanding your post but are you saying Norwich is bigger than Plymouth??? Plymouth is twice the population of Norwich and with the large catchment area of all of Cornwall to boot. Its also an important Military and University city. And on your point about being overlooked by a more prosperous neighbour, Plymouth gets VERY overlooked in favour of wealthier Exeter Trust me!

Nope, I was saying it has twice the usage. But it really is the only place for miles.

Exeter is likely favoured overall - but it's not really a neighbour to Plymouth in the way of Bradford/Leeds or Newcastle/Sunderland. It's an hour closer to Bristol and London - is more likely why. I know it's Devon and Plymouth is Devon, and counties still matter in that part of the world, but in reality they don't - these are two different metros/conurbations entirely.

 

[The Planner]

In many ways @Shrop you are asking for too little to be supported. If you were to be arguing the case for building a Dawlish avoiding line, electrifying all the way to Plymouth, and investing in raising the speed on the lines from Reading and Bristol to Devon up towards 125 or higher, I think you'd get a lot more support, including from me. Doing that lot would be (very) expensive, but it would give a much bigger improvement in journey time to every train, whilst allowing the existing calls to be kept, and increasing capacity. For example, Reading to Taunton is 107 miles, and takes around 1h15 non-stop. If linespeed could be increased to 125 throughout, you'd save around 20 minutes, without removing a single stop.

You need to show your workings there! Most of it is 100mph already, you might get 11-12 if it was all 125.

 

[BayPaul]

You need to show your workings there! Most of it is 100mph already, you might get 11-12 if it was all 125.

My workings were fairly simple - 107 miles from Reading to Taunton via the B&H (according to wikipedia I will admit). Divided by 120 mph (to allow a bit of time for accelerating and decelarating) gives 53.5 minutes, which I called 55 minutes, so 20 minutes less than 1h15. I'll admit that the chances of getting every mile of the line to that linespeed is slim, perhaps I should have gone with a 15 min saving, but the point still stands that doing something like that has much more benefit than trying to run a few limited stop services.

 

[Bald Rick]

My workings were fairly simple - 107 miles from Reading to Taunton via the B&H (according to wikipedia I will admit). Divided by 120 mph (to allow a bit of time for accelerating and decelarating) gives 53.5 minutes, which I called 55 minutes, so 20 minutes less than 1h15. I'll admit that the chances of getting every mile of the line to that linespeed is slim, perhaps I should have gone with a 15 min saving, but the point still stands that doing something like that has much more benefit than trying to run a few limited stop services.

That’s very optimistic on the braking and acceleration, not to mention how to do 125mph from Reading to Southcote Jn!

As a comparison, it is 108 miles from Milton Keynes to Crewe; it’s 125mph almost the whole way (short reductions at Kilsby, Atherstone, Colwich and Stafford), and the start-stop time is 60.5 minutes excluding all allowances except engineering time [2].

 

[cle]

My workings were fairly simple - 107 miles from Reading to Taunton via the B&H (according to wikipedia I will admit). Divided by 120 mph (to allow a bit of time for accelerating and decelarating) gives 53.5 minutes, which I called 55 minutes, so 20 minutes less than 1h15. I'll admit that the chances of getting every mile of the line to that linespeed is slim, perhaps I should have gone with a 15 min saving, but the point still stands that doing something like that has much more benefit than trying to run a few limited stop services.

It's a good saving, but would the investment be worth it for 1tph which runs fast?

Could there ever be scope for 2tph fast? Say a Paignton service which made more Devon stops like Tiverton and Totnes. And the re-openings. Enabling a faster Plymouth/Cornwall. But I can't see much beyond that - and even 2tph is not a lot. The Exeter semi-fast would benefit a little. More from wires though. And it's a long route overall to upgrade for a low frequency.

And folks have even talked about upgrading the route via Bristol. But I don't think you'd get to Taunton in less than 1h40 which is the best current direct I can find.

 

[BayPaul]

That’s very optimistic on the braking and acceleration, not to mention how to do 125mph from Reading to Southcote Jn!

As a comparison, it is 108 miles from Milton Keynes to Crewe; it’s 125mph almost the whole way (short reductions at Kilsby, Atherstone, Colwich and Stafford), and the start-stop time is 60.5 minutes excluding all allowances except engineering time [2].

OK, so my second estimate of a 15 minute saving would be more reasonable if the line could become 125 all the way (and I don't disagree that the Reading end would be tricky to say the least (though equally, if you were rebuilding the line to that extent, I would imagine that you would also get some sections of 140mph running, to save another few minutes as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would imagine that you would also get some sections of 140mph running, to save another few minutes as well.

If it was 140mph the whole way from Southcote Jn to Cogload, which it couldn’t be because of stations etc., it would save about 4.5 minutes over 125mph, allowing for acceleration and deceleration.

 

[stuu]

OK, so my second estimate of a 15 minute saving would be more reasonable if the line could become 125 all the way (and I don't disagree that the Reading end would be tricky to say the least (though equally, if you were rebuilding the line to that extent, I would imagine that you would also get some sections of 140mph running, to save another few minutes as well.

You would need new build from Reading to Pewsey, and from Westbury to Castle Cary as a minimum to get to 125mph. Might as well build that for proper high speed, in the extremely unlikely event that it were to ever happen before the heat death of the universe

 

[6Gman]

Once again my comments have been taken out of context. As I've already said, this was one train that I happened to find, out of many.

Many? Where?

It's one train you found.

I've looked at a 1970s timetable. Two cross-country services that skipped Cheltenham, one that skipped Taunton. And one of those that skipped Cheltenham called at Gloucester (thus adding in more time than saved!).

There's a reason cross-country trains stop (quite) a lot. It's to meet demand.

 

[Starmill]

My workings were fairly simple - 107 miles from Reading to Taunton via the B&H (according to wikipedia I will admit). Divided by 120 mph (to allow a bit of time for accelerating and decelarating) gives 53.5 minutes, which I called 55 minutes, so 20 minutes less than 1h15. I'll admit that the chances of getting every mile of the line to that linespeed is slim, perhaps I should have gone with a 15 min saving, but the point still stands that doing something like that has much more benefit than trying to run a few limited stop services.

I think that 3 - 5 minutes shaved off between Newbury and Cogload Junction is probably more realistic. But there's a good chance that is able to produce some useful journey time improvements coupled with an up passenger loop somewhere between Newbury and Southcote Junction.

I'm unfamiliar with the freight flows on that route also but some enhancements there may be even more useful.

 

[stuu]

I'm unfamiliar with the freight flows on that route also but some enhancements there may be even more useful.

Enormous stone trains travelling at no more than 60mph, of which there are several an hour most hours, and paths for them 24 hours a day. Which have a significant impact on timetabling, and the maximum speeds worth running at

 

[Shrop]

Many? Where?

It's one train you found.

I've looked at a 1970s timetable. Two cross-country services that skipped Cheltenham, one that skipped Taunton. And one of those that skipped Cheltenham called at Gloucester (thus adding in more time than saved!).

There's a reason cross-country trains stop (quite) a lot. It's to meet demand.

I don't have the benefit of every timetable, although I did keep a few. The next one I looked at is May 1986, and the first page I looked at shows southbound trains from Birmingham at 14.15, 15.15 and 15.30, ALL of which skipped Cheltenham, all skipped Tiverton, two of these three ran non stop between Exeter and Plymouth, and the third went to Paignton. So please don't tell me I'd already found the only train . For the record, all of these did stop at Taunton, which I would always say is the next in importance along this route after Exeter and Bristol.

 

[RH Liner]

Isn’t the term ‘crack expresses’ a throwback to steam days when stops were limited because of the time penalty caused by poor acceleration away from stations? The advent of better acceleration by diesels and then electrics meant that extra stops could be pulled in without compromising end to end journey time. High speed services then meant faster times were possible even with some intermediate stops included.

 

[Shrop]

Isn’t the term ‘crack expresses’ a throwback to steam days when stops were limited because of the time penalty caused by poor acceleration away from stations? The advent of better acceleration by diesels and then electrics meant that extra stops could be pulled in without compromising end to end journey time. High speed services then meant faster times were possible even with some intermediate stops included.

True but the time factor is only half the story, the other half is the nuisance factor of passengers moving around at frequent intervals.

 

[IanXC]

You're suggesting that ALL trains from London to Newcastle and Edinburgh, should stop at all of those intermediate stations? That is the comparison ...

Quite the opposite. If you'd not selectively quoted me...

If the ECML justifies 3tph Kings Cross to Newcastle (and beyond), which is what the ECML timetable draft showed, then the logic of the proposed calling patterns makes perfect sense:

1tph stopper (calling at those 8)
1tph semi fast (calling at the principal stations)
1tph fast (calling only at York/non stop)

The same logic cannot be applied to Plymouth to Birmingham unless or until there is a case for 3tph.

As far as CrossCountry service goes, as/when/if there are 2tph Exeter - Birmingham then there is potentially a case for one of them having fewer calling points, but the reality is that timetabling such a service would be highly likely to just result in it catching something else up, and hence we get back to infrastructure enhancements.

 

[tbtc]

Really not convinced.

If we are talking about Plymouth to Birmingham as a template, National Express can run a non-stop coach on top of a regular clock face coach that serves intermediate places without any problem. But a non-stop train can't easily overtake a regular clock face service.

Contrast the London Underground (where the uniform stopping pattern means you can run a train every couple of minutes) to the problems on lines like the Hope Valley (where stoppers have to be very carefully flighted in between the longer distance services, meaning that sometimes the "local" train can't stop at all "local" stations because the express is breathing down its neck) - having everything travelling at the same speed means you can have significantly more trains

Our main lines are already so congested that we're talking about removing direct trains between adjacent stations like Newark and Retford because there's no space in the timetable for one service to stop at both of them - so one non-stop service might mean removing a number of local stops

There's then the problem that (whilst a number of people on here like a very simplistic/ Germanic/ binary arrangement where each service fits one narrow definition) the UK's railways have always been a messy compromise - there are existing passengers to deal with - you might decide that Wakefield is no longer worthy of a stop on long distance high speed services but then does that mean dumping all of the Wakefield - Leeds passengers onto a single 150 on a local service? Fine if you are starting from scratch but a lot harder on a living breathing railway where passengers are used to being able to make lots of journeys.

Looking at the Plymouth - Birmingham corridor again - if you were designing a timetable from scratch then maybe you'd have the Plymouth - Edinburgh XC service stopping at only Exeter - Bristol TM - Birmingham NS - Derby - Sheffield - Leeds - York - Newcastle - Edinburgh? That might save quite a bit of time, if you didn't catch up with the local trains in front (spoiler - you would catch up with the local trains in front). No Taunton/ Bristol Parkway/ Chesterfield/ Wakefield/ Darlington/ Durham etc? Some of those places might be bigger than York (but I've included York as a stop since it's an interchange.... where do you draw the line... Bristol Parkway/ Darlington etc could be interchanges too)

Much better to keep things simple, have consistent service patterns, the disruption caused by one "fast" service just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[HSTEd]

True but the time factor is only half the story, the other half is the nuisance factor of passengers moving around at frequent intervals.

If that was a problem wouldn't we just solve this with a carriage where only long distance passengers would be seated, possibly compulsory booking?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that was a problem wouldn't we just solve this with a carriage where only long distance passengers would be seated, possibly compulsory booking?

That is what BR's "Voyager" class on CrossCountry services was - a reversed HST TGS (to isolate it away from the rest of the train) with all tables and at seat service, only offered as a compulsory reservation dedicated ticket and only for longer flows. Shame the term evolved to mean a mediocre, overcrowded DMU.

 

[Neptune]

True but the time factor is only half the story, the other half is the nuisance factor of passengers moving around at frequent intervals.

Yes it’s disgusting having people moving around on a train.

That is what BR's "Voyager" class on CrossCountry services was - a reversed HST TGS (to isolate it away from the rest of the train) with all tables and at seat service, only offered as a compulsory reservation dedicated ticket and only for longer flows. Shame the term evolved to mean a mediocre, overcrowded DMU.

It was the std class seating in the HST buffet car which was spun so it was at the FC end of it.

 

[modernrail]

I do think there is a big argument on intercity services with quite frequent stops for putting all the longer distance passengers in certain carriages. It is not exactly difficult to achieve. Just programme the booking engines to do this. It would make a difference to people’s experience. There are lots of potential benefits including,

Configuring the longer distance carriages with a bit more luggage space.

Putting the longer distance carriages at the end so they receive less through traffic. They would also receive less general shuffling which is annoying if you are trying to settle in for a long journey. Rail is competing with cars where people are used to having their own space. People don’t get in and get out every 20 mins.

Offering the potential to configure the other carriages a bit differently. Maybe a bit more standing space. Maybe even seats that fold back outside peaks to allow more bikes, pushchairs etc. Also configuring to speed up boarding and alighting.

I have used transpennine since birth and it has always cried out for this sort of solution. There is a real mix of flows. I would as often get the train from Huddersfield to Leeds (20mins) as Leeds to Manchester (1 hour) as Leeds to Liverpool (2 hours ish). On the Huddersfield to Leeds run you were often stood up anyway and I didn’t care that much at busy times. Leeds to Liverpool might be a work trip where I hoped to get a good hour and a bit of laptop time in.

I would personally make the TP trains 6 coaches or more. End carriages 1st and long distance. Middle commuter format. Middles tend to be unreserved. Ends tend to be reserved. At least 2 carriages always fully unreserved.

Instead you have that moment at Leeds where you look through the window of the incoming train to see a forest of reservation slips and then get ready to practice your gymnastics stepping over bags in the vestibule that would make much better standing space.

It really is not rocket science, should be the norm on all Cross Country and TPE and should have been the norm for years.

It also doesn’t need to be an exact science. If most of the thing it set out like this, you get most of the benefits.

 

[Shrop]

Yes it’s disgusting having people moving around on a train.

Sarcasm here isn't helpful. Not everyone likes schoolchildren jumping around and shouting, or loud and tipsy passengers stumbling in front of them, and wondering might disrupt their journey at any of the next several stops (only examples, there are more). That's why a lot of people would prefer to take their cars, even in the sure knowledge of road delays. The one plus of not encouraging rail travel is that it would be unlikely to cope with more passengers anyway. Hmm, cue the comments from those who will cite some less well loaded trains ...

 

[Neptune]

Sarcasm here isn't helpful. Not everyone likes schoolchildren jumping around and shouting, or loud and tipsy passengers stumbling in front of them, and wondering might disrupt their journey at any of the next several stops (only examples, there are more). That's why a lot of people would prefer to take their cars, even in the sure knowledge of road delays. The one plus of not encouraging rail travel is that it would be unlikely to cope with more passengers anyway. Hmm, cue the comments from those who will cite some less well loaded trains ...

So does every train of any distance get rampant schoolkids and drunks guaranteed?

Would you rather the kids get taken by car? Would you prefer drunk people to drive?

I work all kinds of services from suburban stoppers to semi fasts with stops averaging every 10 minutes and can say that very few trains contain the above the majority of the time.

I’m sorry but this whole thread seems like your personal preference should be mandatory for any train over a certain distance (which appears to be a non stop train from your origin to destination with nobody on board but silent people who don’t ever move) rather than what is better for the majority (a regular service with good connectivity).