Limited stop trains

[mrcheek]

If stops were removed, there would be uproar (mainly from MPs and others who dont use the service that much in any case). But if XC did make the suggestion, the uproar would be enough to make them change their minds to save on hassle.

Its similar to why high speed lines have always been difficult to build in this country.
"Whats that? you want to build a high speed line through our town? Well, OK< but we want a station that is served by every single train"

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think this thread shows is that we need more HS lines in this country. Not just HS2, but one paralleling all main lines as well as the XC route. Only then can "crack expresses" really return.

Of course, that's as about as likely to happen as the return of Tonbridge to Ashford fasts on SouthEastern...

 

[YorksLad12]

For some years long distance trains have been timetabled to stop a lot more regularly than they used to. A good example is Plymouth to Birmingham which used to be possible stopping only at Exeter and Bristol TM, whereas today EVERY train stops at Totnes, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

Some passengers like to be able to relax during their journey, but when there are no less than EIGHT stops during this journey of just three and a half hours, all of which involve a fair bit of passengers shuffling around, this is hardly conducive to relaxation. Defenders of rail operations will say that trains don’t lose much time having to stop due to wonderful acceleration these days, and they will also say that congestion on railways simply doesn’t allow for long distance faster services, but these arguments are never all that convincing.

The additional six stops in this example does actually cost the best part of half an hour, and when it suits rail operators such as when they want to justify not investing in more tracks, they can often find paths to overtake, and Bristol could provide one such opportunity.

Do people think a limited stop service, even just once every three hours, would be worth providing for passengers who want to travel longer distances in greater comfort, and a bit quicker? It would be refreshing to see a “can-do” attitude to this and not just a list of reasons why it can’t be done! Would the provision of a couple more trainsets be a good start for example? It's not as if XC services all run around with plenty of space at present ...

I've never been a great fan of XC but that's because I don't really know what it's for.

Then I thought about COP26 and alternatives to flying... and *that's* what it should be for; whereas, at the moment, it get used to fill in some gaps that should be filled by local services. Some of those stops are in there because the service ends up running so slowly to meet a path elsewhere it might as well stop!

If stops were removed, there would be uproar (mainly from MPs and others who dont use the service that much in any case). But if XC did make the suggestion, the uproar would be enough to make them change their minds to save on hassle.

Its similar to why high speed lines have always been difficult to build in this country.
"Whats that? you want to build a high speed line through our town? Well, OK< but we want a station that is served by every single train"

Indeed. I'm sure XC's ticket sales from Wakefield to York and beyond, or Derby and beyond, are miniscule. And yet it stops in Wakefield to relieve pressure on other services. Suggest not stopping there, and the cries would soon ring out.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm confused by the OP to be honest...

Unless there's an issue with reservations not being displayed (which surely can't be the case more than 50% of the time, even on XC) how does an intermediate stop with a few people alighting and a few others boarding, prevent you from relaxing? Maybe at peak times at the larger stations it might slightly divert your attention from your book or whatever, but those aren't the stops you'd be cutting anyway.

Cut the stops out at Taunton and Tiverton Parkway and you're robbing large swathes of Somerset and Devon of their link with the rest of the country. Revenue will drop and your fares will go up as a result.

If you're making a journey that lots of people make, with few intermediate places of note, then you might luck out and get a fast train to London. Otherwise the railway can't pick and choose who it serves and remain viable. If your journey is a niche one then if you're lucky you might manage with just one change and relatively quick legs. But you can't have a direct, non-stop service on demand between two fairly disparate places in different regions.

The alternative is to get a car, no interruptions there as long as you don’t relax too much.

 

[HSTEd]

Its similar to why high speed lines have always been difficult to build in this country.
"Whats that? you want to build a high speed line through our town? Well, OK< but we want a station that is served by every single train"

Well, even if a high speed line stopped every train every 30km or so, based on Shinkansen experience average speeds of ~110mph would be obtainable.

Which still thrashes conventional trains most of the time.

 

[BayPaul]

On something like GWR, the Southern-like pattern of "fast to X then all stations to Y" seems to fit quite well, it also allows for more regional travel.

Effectively that's what it already is in the west, except for Devon. The semi-fast services being fast to Newbury, then (nearly) all stations to Exeter, whilst the fast services are fast to Plymouth, then (nearly) all stations to Penzance. There really isn't capacity to be able to run a fast to Taunton, then all stations to Plymouth which would complete that pattern for Devon, so instead the fast services need to run semi-fast, calling at Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbott and Totnes. Of these stations, Newton A, Exeter and Taunton add useful connections, and are big places that you wouldn't really want to skip, so Totnes is probably the only one that could be dropped from the fast service, though it also adds large numbers of passengers, as it serves a huge and affluent hinterland. I don't think there are any reasonable ways to improve this pattern

An extremely good idea, and in reality, a return to the ways the railways were run in the past. Long-distance trains should be much longer in formation, run less frequently, and make far fewer stops. The reduction in frequency would free-up paths for more medium and short-distance services long the same routes, serving stations missed by the faster limited-stop long-distance trains, but allowing passenger to connect in and out of the faster services en-route.

A reduction in frequency below hourly would be an extremely negative move. I'm all for removing excessive frequencies, but hourly is about the minimum that is really useful. "Crack expresses" belong in the last century, an all day clockface service is better for modern needs and better competes with the car.

I agree completely with Bletchleyite. This would be a huge backward step. Hourly + frequencies on Intercity routes is something that is really good about the UK rail network, and they tend to be busy, and running to the maximum length of the platforms. Crack expresses would be a massive reduction in capacity and convenience, all to save a few minutes.

 

[RailWonderer]

On something like GWR, the Southern-like pattern of "fast to X then all stations to Y" seems to fit quite well, it also allows for more regional travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==



A reduction in frequency below hourly would be an extremely negative move. I'm all for removing excessive frequencies, but hourly is about the minimum that is really useful. "Crack expresses" belong in the last century, an all day clockface service is better for modern needs and better competes with the car.

Tell that to GA who are about to reintroduce the daily Norwich IC express calling at Ipswich and Norwich only. Formed of (hopefully) a 3 or 4 car 755 for enthusiasts (but in all likelihood a 12 car 745).

 

[edwin_m]

An extremely good idea, and in reality, a return to the ways the railways were run in the past. Long-distance trains should be much longer in formation, run less frequently, and make far fewer stops. The reduction in frequency would free-up paths for more medium and short-distance services long the same routes, serving stations missed by the faster limited-stop long-distance trains, but allowing passenger to connect in and out of the faster services en-route.

In many and possibly most timetables from that era, the intermediate stations only had a handful of services each day too.

 

[Shrop]

Okay all you folks who are staunchly defending the need to stop frequently, would you advocate that all the present Euston to Glasgow trains that are first stop Warrington, should instead also stop at Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford and Crewe? After all, aren't there people in those towns who think they should be served by every train?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

I'm confused by the OP to be honest...

Unless there's an issue with reservations not being displayed (which surely can't be the case more than 50% of the time, even on XC) how does an intermediate stop with a few people alighting and a few others boarding, prevent you from relaxing?

"A few people alighting and a few others boarding"??? If it's just a few, then is it really worth stopping every train for, and if it's more than a few, then yes its disruptive. Why is this confusing?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

"Crack expresses" belong in the last century, an all day clockface service is better for modern needs and better competes with the car.

As I've said earlier, I'm not pushing for the removal of the all day clockface service, I think this is a good thing. What I'm suggesting is that there should ALSO be a handful (just 3 or 4 per day) of faster, limited stop services aswell. Many of our existing services are packed, XC being a good example, and so the limited stop services would relieve overcrowding, as well as being better placed to compete with the car or flights for longer distance journeys. I've also suggested that if this necessitates additional track and rolling stock, then we ought to be looking more seriously into this.

France have demonstrated how successfully limited stop trains can attract longer distance passengers to their railways, and they're about to invest further into this thinking. And don't make the mistake of thinking the UK is only about heading north or west from London, it's only a matter of time before people recognise the potential of running from London and the UK provinces to more European destinations, along with recognising the associated folly of removing the originally proposed HS1-HS2 link. It's only our entrenched thinking that is stopping progress here, along with our temporary poor relations with France and the rest of Europe, and to be quite honest, if we were a bit more enlightened with our rail transport thinking, I think the Europeans would take us a bit more seriously too!

 

[Falcon1200]

Sometimes I travel from Glasgow to Preston for connections there; On those days I want a non-stop Glasgow C-Preston train.
Sometimes I travel from Glasgow to Crewe for connections there; On those days I want a non-stop Glasgow C-Crewe train.
Sometimes I travel from Glasgow to Birmingham New St for connections there; On those days I want a non-stop Glasgow C-Birmingham New St train.
Sometimes I travel from Glasgow to Euston; On those days I want a non-stop Glasgow C-Euston train.

Unfortunately it is not possible to meet all these conflicting needs - for just one passenger ! I do actually agree that it is not ideal having long distance expresses also serving local needs, eg Glasgow/Eustons providing almost the only service between Wigan and Warrington, Bournemouth/Manchesters stopping at roughly 10-minute intervals at Leamington, Coventry, Birmingham International and New St, but these trains provide important services at all these stations.

As I've said earlier, I'm not pushing for the removal of the all day clockface service, I think this is a good thing. What I'm suggesting is that there should ALSO be a handful (just 3 or 4 per day) of faster, limited stop services aswell.

With the route capacity issues on our network, in many cases providing such services would mean reducing other services, and just 3 or 4 limited stop trains per day is only a benefit if their timings suit. At least HS2 will address some of these desires, but that is on what is by far the busiest route in the UK, and I cannot see that solution being justified elsewhere.

 

[BayPaul]

As I've said earlier, I'm not pushing for the removal of the all day clockface service, I think this is a good thing. What I'm suggesting is that there should ALSO be a handful (just 3 or 4 per day) of faster, limited stop services aswell. Many of our existing services are packed, XC being a good example, and so the limited stop services would relieve overcrowding, as well as being better placed to compete with the car or flights for longer distance journeys. I've also suggested that if this necessitates additional track and rolling stock, then we ought to be looking more seriously into this.

The issue is that the cost of the extra track needed for this handful of 'crack' services would be many billions of pounds. Alternatively, less money could be spent to significantly increase the number of trains running at a similar speed to the existing trains.
For example - making Plymouth - Paddington 2 trains per hour, both calling at around 5 stations en-route would require additional capacity into Paddington, and probably new signalling in places to fit the extra trains in. Running a handful of faster services would require all of that, but would also require four-tracking of large sections of the line, to allow overtaking, but the number of extra seats would be a lot less.

Okay all you folks who are staunchly defending the need to stop frequently, would you advocate that all the present Euston to Glasgow trains that are first stop Warrington, should instead also stop at Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford and Crewe? After all, aren't there people in those towns who think they should be served by every train?

After HS2, I would expect calls to be added at a number of these stations.
But providing a list like that is like saying that the GWR fast services should also call at Slough, Newbury, Westbury, Tiverton, Teignmouth etc, which isn't being suggested. There is an optimum stopping pattern, and what is in place at the moment is pretty much as good as it can get without a massive infrastructure cost.

 

[Shrop]

With the route capacity issues on our network, in many cases providing such services would mean reducing other services, and just 3 or 4 limited stop trains per day is only a benefit if their timings suit. At least HS2 will address some of these desires, but that is on what is by far the busiest route in the UK, and I cannot see that solution being justified elsewhere.

To quote from what I've already said ... "I've also suggested that if this necessitates additional track and rolling stock, then we ought to be looking more seriously into this." The negatives about route capacity we already know, there's no need to keep re-stating the same thing!

 

[Falcon1200]

The negatives about route capacity we already know, there's no need to keep re-stating the same thing!

I beg to differ, it needs to be restated given the huge cost and time required to construct just one capacity-relieving route !

 

[Shrop]

I beg to differ, it needs to be restated given the huge cost and time required to construct just one capacity-relieving route !

Hmm, good job the French, Japanese and others don't subscribe to always focussing on why we can't do things. This will be why their railways are successful, whilst ours are creaking under the weight of overcrowding, and why countless drivers will tell you they won't entertain the idea of rail travel because it's too slow, inconvenient, unreliable etc. Surely even those who keep up this can't do attitude to railways, ought to recognise this fact about millions of UK drivers?

Meanwhile the only proposal we have, HS2, is cut back so that it only benefits those places which already have some of the fastest trains in the country, and no longer provides the big journey time savings from Birmingham to Leeds, that so many people tolerated the Chiltern route for. We know that Boris's promise of enhancements in place of the Eastern Arm will be cut yet further, once people have accepted the shock of this major cutback. To pretend otherwise will only fool the gullible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tell that to GA who are about to reintroduce the daily Norwich IC express calling at Ipswich and Norwich only. Formed of (hopefully) a 3 or 4 car 755 for enthusiasts (but in all likelihood a 12 car 745).

They have been running since September.

Okay all you folks who are staunchly defending the need to stop frequently, would you advocate that all the present Euston to Glasgow trains that are first stop Warrington, should instead also stop at Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford and Crewe? After all, aren't there people in those towns who think they should be served by every train?

No, because the other stations you mention are provided with a good service already. There is a difference between adding stops into a service, and taking them away from a service.

I've also suggested that if this necessitates additional track and rolling stock, then we ought to be looking more seriously into this.

But.... additional track to allow this type of service is a big capital investment, for - frankly - minimal benefit if as you suggest it is only 3/4 trains a day. Which by the sounds of it would be for people who would probably have travelled anyway, but prefer a quicker journey (don’t we all) and a journe with fewer people bothering them by standing up to slight / board.

Hmm, good job the French, Japanese and others don't subscribe to always focussing on why we can't do things. This will be why their railways are successfu

Japanese railways I’ll give you, albeit their commuter services can be horrendously overcrowded, and to deliver the longer, non stop services they built an entirely new network of infrastructure.

French railways - no. Try getting a medium - long distance train off the TGV network. E.g. Bordeaux to Nantes, the 4th and 10th largest cities. Roughly the same distance as Plymouth to Birmingham, and both on the same side of France. 3 trains a day. Takes over 4 hours, with fewer intermediate stops than the Plymouth - Birmingham service.

 

[The Planner]

Hmm, good job the French, Japanese and others don't subscribe to always focussing on why we can't do things. This will be why their railways are successful, whilst ours are creaking under the weight of overcrowding, and why countless drivers will tell you they won't entertain the idea of rail travel because it's too slow, inconvenient, unreliable etc. Surely even those who keep up this can't do attitude to railways, ought to recognise this fact about millions of UK drivers?

I was under the impression off the TGV routes the product is quite mediocre. And the Japanese aren't afraid of closing railways either, over 1000km closed in the last twenty years.

 

[bramling]

On something like GWR, the Southern-like pattern of "fast to X then all stations to Y" seems to fit quite well, it also allows for more regional travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==



A reduction in frequency below hourly would be an extremely negative move. I'm all for removing excessive frequencies, but hourly is about the minimum that is really useful. "Crack expresses" belong in the last century, an all day clockface service is better for modern needs and better competes with the car.

The latter point is of interest.

Say I plan to spent a week in Glasgow. We’ll discount cost as a factor as I won’t be paying for the train fare, and I’m allegedly sufficiently privileged that I can happily afford the petrol to go by car, though depending on where I’m staying there might be some level of inconvenience in having to find somewhere to park the car when I’m there.

My journey isn’t massively time-sensitive, I’m not too fussed when I make the journey, as long as I get there at some point during a sensible time of day.

I get the train timetable out and see there’s an hourly service, but making a number of stops. Alternatively there’s a small handful of services which only call once, though the saving on journey time is minimal (remember I’m not actually that fussed when I arrive, my main priority is I want the journey to be as bearable as possible).

To be honest, bearing in mind the car is a considerable temptation, the existence of a “crack” service could just be enough to tip the balance for me. Alternatively, something else which would tip the balance would be compartments.

From dealing with people who aren’t regular rail users, I’m not sure this is massively atypical.

 

[HSTEd]

I get the train timetable out and see there’s an hourly service, but making a number of stops. Alternatively there’s a small handful of services which only call once, though the saving on journey time is minimal (remember I’m not actually that fussed when I arrive, my main priority is I want the journey to be as bearable as possible).

To be honest, bearing in mind the car is a considerable temptation, the existence of a “crack” service could just be enough to tip the balance for me. Alternatively, something else which would tip the balance would be compartments.

From dealing with people who aren’t regular rail users, I’m not sure this is massively atypical.

But the problem with the crack service is that if you miss it you are stuck.

And given an increasingly clockface railway, consuming paths in any hour consumes them in all hours.

And unfortunately compartments are permanently off the menu given the problems with safety they have had in the past.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Okay all you folks who are staunchly defending the need to stop frequently, would you advocate that all the present Euston to Glasgow trains that are first stop Warrington, should instead also stop at Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford and Crewe? After all, aren't there people in those towns who think they should be served by every train?

If you read my whole post, I did address this- if you're on a main line to London, somewhere like Preston, Warrington, York, or Doncaster- then there is some justification in those being the first/last stops on the fastest services from/to London. The places further down the line load well enough that the train will likely be close to capacity after the final call at somewhere like Warrington. A five car Voyager calling at only the major cities on the SW-NE axis would struggle to load without the passengers to and from the other significant towns en-route.

"A few people alighting and a few others boarding"??? If it's just a few, then is it really worth stopping every train for, and if it's more than a few, then yes its disruptive. Why is this confusing?

That other people are on board is a fact of public transport. That most of them will be making a different journey to you is also a fact of public transport, especially on routes without the obvious destination of a Mega-city at one end.

Sure, if you throw trillions at it you could have a high speed network serving only the very largest cities, but you won't get that on our existing network without disappointing anyone who doesn't live in those cities.
If people boarding and alighting at intermediate stations is really that much of an irritation, I'm afraid that sounds like a "you" problem. Get some decent headphones and an Audible subscription (#notsponsored) and Robert is your mother's brother.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tell that to GA who are about to reintroduce the daily Norwich IC express calling at Ipswich and Norwich only. Formed of (hopefully) a 3 or 4 car 755 for enthusiasts (but in all likelihood a 12 car 745).

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

 

[Shrop]

If people boarding and alighting at intermediate stations is really that much of an irritation, I'm afraid that sounds like a "you" problem. Get some decent headphones and an Audible subscription (#notsponsored) and Robert is your mother's brother.

Well that's one way of looking at it. People boarding and alighting has often been a source of pleasure to me, depending on the situation, but it's certainly not a personal gripe, it's just an observation fed by the comments of many people that I've spoken to during my career in transport. But your comments make me wonder how much actual evidence you have, that those drivers who aren't too keen on rail travel, really are ambivalent between few or many stops along their journeys?

 

[6Gman]

And given an increasingly clockface railway, consuming paths in any hour consumes them in all hours.

I was going to make exactly this point. Putting a path for a new train will mean putting it in each hour in most cases. On these long distance services there will be points where that will be difficult/ impossible.

And if a prime issue is that XC trains are overcrowded there are better and cheaper ways of addressing it, like providing more rolling stock to lengthen existing services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was going to make exactly this point. Putting a path for a new train will mean putting it in each hour in most cases. On these long distance services there will be points where that will be difficult/ impossible.

And if a prime issue is that XC trains are overcrowded there are better and cheaper ways of addressing it, like providing more rolling stock to lengthen existing services.

I think a key point worth making here is that two reasonably quick trains per hour are better than one fast and one slow, because that is to all intents and purposes just an hourly service, which if it doesn't fit your timing needs can cost you an extra hour, whereas a half-hourly service could cost less than that.

 

[bramling]

I think a key point worth making here is that two reasonably quick trains per hour are better than one fast and one slow, because that is to all intents and purposes just an hourly service, which if it doesn't fit your timing needs can cost you an extra hour, whereas a half-hourly service could cost less than that.

Are people *that* time sensitive? I’ve certainly planned work journeys on the basis of a faster (or emptier) train, even if it actually meant starting out earlier or getting home later.

And this is in a commuting context. I’d imagine people would do this more for longer distance journeys.

I think things are more complex than half-hourly=good hourly=bad.

 

[BayPaul]

Are people *that* time sensitive? I’ve certainly planned work journeys on the basis of a faster (or emptier) train, even if it actually meant starting out earlier or getting home later.

And this is in a commuting context. I’d imagine people would do this more for longer distance journeys.

I think things are more complex than half-hourly=good hourly=bad.

If people aren't that time sensitive, then what is the point of a faster train!
If you just miss a train, a half-hourly service suddenly seems like a very much better thing than waiting around for 50 minutes on a station. For my point of view poor frequency will always make me turn towards the car
From a capacity point of view, half hourly is certainly better than hourly, especially if the trains are already too long to lengthen. Even a hourly slow and an hourly fast are unlikely to have balanced loads between them.
And from a line capacity point of view, a two-track line can probably take a dozen semi-fast trains an hour if they all have a similar number of stops. If you run a fast train and a slow train on the same line, it's probably full, as the fast starts just ahead of one slow, and almost catches up the previous slow by its terminus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are people *that* time sensitive?

If you want to compete effectively with the car, yes, they absolutely are. The time that counts is how long you have to be away from home for each mode.

If you're commuting for a 9am start, appointment or whatever, and you have an hourly train taking an hour, say, or a half-hourly one taking 1h15, if the former gets you to your workplace at 0805 then the journey has taken 1h 55mins. The half hourly one would allow you to get there at 0835, which means it has taken 1h 40mins.

Below half-hourly and it gets less clear cut, which is why half-hourly is a very sweet spot indeed for frequencies. Half hourly with planned connections is literally the perfect frequency for most mainline services, it only makes great sense to go more frequent once you've maxed out train lengths. The Swiss know that, and option C for Manchester did too.

OK, many office workers can shift their working time, but that isn't applicable to everything.

I think things are more complex than half-hourly=good hourly=bad.

It isn't 100% clear cut, and the effect is greater the shorter the journey. But if you go below hourly the effect becomes huge.

 

[bramling]

If people aren't that time sensitive, then what is the point of a faster train!
If you just miss a train, a half-hourly service suddenly seems like a very much better thing than waiting around for 50 minutes on a station. For my point of view poor frequency will always make me turn towards the car
From a capacity point of view, half hourly is certainly better than hourly, especially if the trains are already too long to lengthen. Even a hourly slow and an hourly fast are unlikely to have balanced loads between them.
And from a line capacity point of view, a two-track line can probably take a dozen semi-fast trains an hour if they all have a similar number of stops. If you run a fast train and a slow train on the same line, it's probably full, as the fast starts just ahead of one slow, and almost catches up the previous slow by its terminus.

People are quite happy to fill any time having a coffee or whatever. The reason why some people prefer a faster train is because they don’t really like being on the train in the first place, so a faster train minimises the experience.

I can only speak for people I know, however I can think of numerous examples where people plan around a more bearable journey.

Likewise not everyone turns up at the station and just misses a train. Even on a half-hourly service many people will plan around the timetable as far as possible. I certainly do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People are quite happy to fill any time having a coffee or whatever.

Depends. If it's early morning, I am vastly happier to get up at 0600 than 0530.

I'm sure some people simply hate trains, but most people hate longer journeys than their car.

 

[BayPaul]

People are quite happy to fill any time having a coffee or whatever. The reason why some people prefer a faster train is because they don’t really like being on the train in the first place, so a faster train minimises the experience.

I can only speak for people I know, however I can think of numerous examples where people plan around a more bearable journey.

Likewise not everyone turns up at the station and just misses a train. Even on a half-hourly service many people will plan around the timetable as far as possible. I certainly do.

These people are getting quite specific in their likes and dislikes! Happy to spend an hour having a coffee at the Pumpkin Cafe on the station, but allergic to spending an extra 30 minutes on a train.
I too would prefer to spend less time on a train, but, like most people, I generally have a specific time to depart or arrive, and can't plan my whole day around the best train of the day. A nice frequent service gives a much better chance of achieving that than a few crack expresses. Most people plan their journeys on journey planners, rather than studying the minutia of the timetable, so a service that only runs occasionally would not necessarily get noticed in any case.
Where it is possible to squeeze in a fast service, great, and I'll certainly use it, but given the choice between an occasional fast express, and adding in an extra service every hour, I know which I would prefer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These people are getting quite specific in their likes and dislikes! Happy to spend an hour having a coffee at the Pumpkin Cafe on the station, but allergic to spending an extra 30 minutes on a train.
I too would prefer to spend less time on a train, but, like most people, I generally have a specific time to depart or arrive, and can't plan my whole day around the best train of the day. A nice frequent service gives a much better chance of achieving that than a few crack expresses. Most people plan their journeys on journey planners, rather than studying the minutia of the timetable, so a service that only runs occasionally would not necessarily get noticed in any case.
Where it is possible to squeeze in a fast service, great, and I'll certainly use it, but given the choice between an occasional fast express, and adding in an extra service every hour, I know which I would prefer.

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.