May 2019 timetable changes

[bramling]

Oh the world of railway enthusiasts. Trains are fine, but coaches? Totally unviable. Get real, lots of people use coaches, and the journey time is less than twice that of the train, usually for a fraction of the fare.

I’d say this applies to more than rail enthusiasts. I can think of plenty of people who happily use trains but wouldn’t entertain using a bus or coach - especially outside of central London.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Different Question, when do you want the railway maintenance to be done?

The tail is wagging the dog if the matter is approached from this view. Maintenance should be fitted around the timetable, not the other way around. There will never be a through-the-night timetable on most lines, that much is determined purely by passenger demand. So maintenance should be fitted into the gaps.

Is it more expensive? Perhaps. But surely, on the scale of all the wastage and inefficiency in Network Rail, it's a drop in the ocean!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I’d say this applies to more than rail enthusiasts. I can think of plenty of people who happily use trains but wouldn’t entertain using a bus or coach - especially outside of central London.

Exactly. Some of my friends recently debated going to London - whether they were going to drive or whether they would take the train. Taking the coach simply isn't an option for them, and I wasn't going to recommend it as it's an utterly farcical suggestion to most of them. If it takes longer than the car, most of them are not interested, even if it costs less than driving.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The tail is wagging the dog if the matter is approached from this view. Maintenance should be fitted around the timetable, not the other way around. There will never be a through-the-night timetable on most lines, that much is determined purely by passenger demand. So maintenance can be fit in in the gaps.

Is it more expensive? Perhaps. But surely, on the scale of all the wastage and inefficiency in Network Rail, it's a drop in the ocean!

Ok, but they need 10 hours to do major engineering, the timetable has to be designed to fit round this. Trust me on this, if you can find a way to fit it into a smaller timescale you will be a multi-billionaire overnight as every railway in the world will buy the system off you. It isn't ideal of course not, but it is the best there is

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ok, but they need 10 hours to do major engineering, the timetable has to be designed to fit round this. Trust me on this, if you can find a way to fit it into a smaller timescale you will be a multi-billionaire overnight as every railway in the world will buy the system off you. It isn't ideal of course not, but it is the best there is

How does it work then on other lines that have a much later service each day of the week? SWML, GWML, BML, SEML, CML....

 

[pt_mad]

The west west coast has track capable of EPS tilt thought. It mentions an early shutdown Saturday nights for the duration of the West coast Partnership also.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The west west coast has track capable of EPS tilt thought. It mentions an early shutdown Saturday nights for the duration of the West coast Partnership also.

Do the slow lines need to be EPS tilt capable though? If not, couldn't the slow lines then be used to have a two-track railway when the fast lines need work? And vice versa?

I am sure there is a solution. The question is just - is the railway prepared to put the effort, time and crucially money into adopting that solution?

 

[pt_mad]

Do the slow lines need to be EPS tilt capable though? If not, couldn't the slow lines then be used to have a two-track railway when the fast lines need work? And vice versa?

I am sure there is a solution. The question is just - is the railway prepared to put the effort, time and crucially money into adopting that solution?

I think we can assume some weeks that is the case. Other weeks it's a complete block in places. Again it's the DFT who specify the basic services per hour minimum to where and after what time as an earliest. They simply don't envisage an ultra late night operation along the more Midlands stretches of the WCML for the foreseeable, at least until HS2 operation makes requirements a little clearer.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Do the slow lines need to be EPS tilt capable though? If not, couldn't the slow lines then be used to have a two-track railway when the fast lines need work? And vice versa?

I am sure there is a solution. The question is just - is the railway prepared to put the effort, time and crucially money into adopting that solution?

It is not four track all the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. Some of my friends recently debated going to London - whether they were going to drive or whether they would take the train. Taking the coach simply isn't an option for them, and I wasn't going to recommend it as it's an utterly farcical suggestion to most of them. If it takes longer than the car, most of them are not interested, even if it costs less than driving.

It's also a comfort issue for bigger people - coaches invariably have poor legroom and quite narrow seats (as to have them wide enough would require 2+1 seating or those pull-out seats SNCF coaches were using for a bit).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It is not four track all the way.

Entirely true, and it may be necessary to amend timetables where a non-four track section is to be worked on. But there is already a process for that; it happens on plenty of other lines all the time. Whilst these are all good reasons from the perspective of the railway, it needs to take an outsider's view too when it considers these kinds of things!

 

[Starmill]

I’d say this applies to more than rail enthusiasts. I can think of plenty of people who happily use trains but wouldn’t entertain using a bus or coach - especially outside of central London.

And I know lots of people who often travel by coach, but scoff when I say there are benefits to travel by rail. They see it as paying more, sometimes much more, for a service which is less reliable, which cannot guarantee a seat even on long journeys and which is more difficult with their luggage. Most will never consider a train, and those that will would never countence changing. Some have had one poor experience with overcrowding and won't give it a second chance. I really don't see what this has to do with the May timetable.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Entirely true, and it may be necessary to amend timetables where a non-four track section is to be worked on. But there is already a process for that; it happens on plenty of other lines all the time. Whilst these are all good reasons from the perspective of the railway, it needs to take an outsider's view too when it considers these kinds of things!

Indeed. RRB’s, which everyone on this thread has said they don’t like!

 

[Muzer]

How does it work then on other lines that have a much later service each day of the week? SWML, GWML, BML, SEML, CML....

SWML: They actually cancelled (well, permanently bustituted) the 0105 on Sunday nights beyond Basingstoke for this very reason. But even then, the main line as far as Basingstoke is four track, and the 0105 has adequate slack in its schedule to allow for two of the adjacent tracks to be closed for engineering work (using special arrangements, mind you, as the signalling does not allow for this) if need be. All the two-track sections as far as Southampton also have bidirectional working so (though I don't know for sure) I'd imagine it's possible for one line to close late at night.
GWML: These seem to be sometimes partially bustituted (at intermediate stops) to allow for major diversions. But even without that, you've got the Sunday GWML service being atrocious so that they can close two of the tracks for most of Sunday. I imagine this rather makes up for it on the section towards London. On the sections further out I believe there is a reasonable amount of bidirectional working possible which would allow one line to close at late nights (correct me if I'm wrong).
BML: This line is pretty much designed with being able to carry out engineering work in mind. There are large sections where the traction current can be turned off to just one or two lines to allow them to be maintained while others are open. Further on there's bidirectional working on the two-track sections as far as Preston Park (from which trains can always run via a reversal at Hove if the line needs to be closed for engineering works; there's also running via a reversal at Lewes possible). However, you're right that this has been causing some issues, and I know many of the late-night services were cancelled in the medium term to allow a backlog of engineering works to be carried out. I imagine this line probably gets more weekend closures than most for this very reason as well — something that really doesn't want doing on the West Coast Main Line if it can be avoided.
SEML, CML: No idea, I don't do Southeastern much, but I imagine a similar story applies here.

Bear in mind that the WCML only really has one sensible route to Birmingham beyond Rugby — via Coventry and Birmingham International. This is double track and doesn't have the signalling arrangements in place to allow for regularly scheduled single-line working. You could argue that that could change; I don't know exactly how that would affect the last train times if it were. But beyond all that, these lines also must get hammered much less than the WCML. The WCML has 125mph tilting trains round sharp bends along with a lot of freight, and that can't exactly be healthy for the track, compared with 100mph commuter EMUs over relatively straight track. It wuold not surprise me at all if Rugby-Birmingham needs a lot more maintenance than Basingstoke-Southampton, Swindon-Bath or Three Bridges-Brighton.

 

[notlob.divad]

Ok, but they need 10 hours to do major engineering, the timetable has to be designed to fit round this. Trust me on this, if you can find a way to fit it into a smaller timescale you will be a multi-billionaire overnight as every railway in the world will buy the system off you. It isn't ideal of course not, but it is the best there is

There is an answer that a lot of the world use. It is bi-directional signalling as standard, thus allowing you to shut down 1 track of a two track railway to get your maintenance done. Then it is only the single track bits that require a full closure. The timetable benefits are massive allowing for through the night services at a usable frequency and minimising disruption for longer periods. However it is something the UK has point blank refused to adopted outside of more than a handful of locations.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There is an answer that a lot of the world use. It is bi-directional signalling as standard, thus allowing you to shut down 1 track of a two track railway to get your maintenance done. Then it is only the single track bits that require a full closure. The timetable benefits are massive allowing for through the night services at a usable frequency and minimising disruption for longer periods. However it is something the UK has point blank refused to adopted outside of more than a handful of locations.

But given the loadings on the last trains, is there really a demand for later ones & through the night ones, up the WCML? As pointed out above, the WCML gets a lot of hammer. Is it really worth the expense of staffing stations, resignalling lines and sweating your assets (rolling stock and infrastructure) that much, just for a handful of passengers? I can’t see a business case for it.

 

[Class 170101]

There are 'four tracks' to Birmingham New Street from Rugby.

Head from Rugby to Nuneaton then head left via Coleshill Parkway to Birmingham New Street. To serve Coventry reverse at Nuneaton. If there is a requirement to serve Birmingham International then either serve it by reversing at Coventry or if the block is needed between Rugby and Coventry head to New Street first from Nuneaton then serve Birmingham International and then Coventry. Note make the train set down only after Rugby.

The only station you may have to bus for on some occasions would be Birmingham International.

 

[Muzer]

There are 'four tracks' to Birmingham New Street from Rugby.

Head from Rugby to Nuneaton then head left via Coleshill Parkway to Birmingham New Street. To serve Coventry reverse at Nuneaton. If there is a requirement to serve Birmingham International then either serve it by reversing at Coventry or if the block is needed between Rugby and Coventry head to New Street first from Nuneaton then serve Birmingham International and then Coventry. Note make the train set down only after Rugby.

The only station you may have to bus for on some occasions would be Birmingham International.

OK, so now you're adding an extra constraint that the service has to be a Voyager (since none of these alternative routes are electrified), and you're adding route knowledge requirements for this last service for routes along which Virgin drivers don't commonly drive (I don't know how many of them, if any, would sign these routes). Again, not impossible, but you see how all these incremental things add up to really make the case difficult? (Incidentally, I'd imagine that in reality, you'd just bustitute the nights you can't get directly to Coventry and Birmingham International, and you'd have the train run straight to Birmingham New Street — but perhaps I'm wrong).

I don't disagree with you that it'd be nice to have later services. It's just the practicalities of these are not as straightforward as they may appear at first.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There are 'four tracks' to Birmingham New Street from Rugby.

Head from Rugby to Nuneaton then head left via Coleshill Parkway to Birmingham New Street. To serve Coventry reverse at Nuneaton. If there is a requirement to serve Birmingham International then either serve it by reversing at Coventry or if the block is needed between Rugby and Coventry head to New Street first from Nuneaton then serve Birmingham International and then Coventry. Note make the train set down only after Rugby.

The only station you may have to bus for on some occasions would be Birmingham International.

In addition to Muzer points above, there’s no crew or stabling facilities at Coventry if you’re ending the train there after Birmingham. You’ve made it into a voyager, so it has to be fuelled. It will need cleaning and servicing anyway. Basically, it’s going to end up as a bus. Do people want a permanent bustituion? If so, why aren’t they already using National Express or Megabus?
How would you time this service? If it could be coming to Coventry from either direction, and direct from Rugby or via Nuneaton or via Birmingham? the printed timetable needs to show something Inevitably this will be the longest journey time (assuming train is set down only after Euston) thus making it unattractive to passengers.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

There is an answer that a lot of the world use. It is bi-directional signalling as standard, thus allowing you to shut down 1 track of a two track railway to get your maintenance done. Then it is only the single track bits that require a full closure. The timetable benefits are massive allowing for through the night services at a usable frequency and minimising disruption for longer periods. However it is something the UK has point blank refused to adopted outside of more than a handful of locations.

There is a fundamental reason GB has not adopted this even though it has been looked at many times. It’s not a point blank we refuse to adopt it as you infer but for a safety reasons we simply can’t without risking our track workers.

GB has a different (smaller) loading gauge, which in a nutshell means the pair of lines in a two-track railway are just that little bit closer together, this means you can’t get the safe distance between the line being worked on and the adjacent open running line in many cases as you do on the continent, if GB used continental loading gauge it’d be a different story. It should also be pointed out a number of places have an even smaller clearance, something which often makes ‘putting things back’ difficult as any new infrastructure has to adopt compliant clearance.

This for example is why in HS1 the other night with the dewirement they were able to single line work as it’s continental gauge...

 

[driver_m]

There are 'four tracks' to Birmingham New Street from Rugby.

Head from Rugby to Nuneaton then head left via Coleshill Parkway to Birmingham New Street. To serve Coventry reverse at Nuneaton. If there is a requirement to serve Birmingham International then either serve it by reversing at Coventry or if the block is needed between Rugby and Coventry head to New Street first from Nuneaton then serve Birmingham International and then Coventry. Note make the train set down only after Rugby.

The only station you may have to bus for on some occasions would be Birmingham International.

Only Wolves depot sign Nuneaton-Birmingham for definite. Euston I don't know, and the Northern Depots definitely don't . Given that there's a lot of Preston depot work involving the WM, that 4 tracking claim isn't really a credible one.

 

[pt_mad]

But given the loadings on the last trains, is there really a demand for later ones & through the night ones, up the WCML? As pointed out above, the WCML gets a lot of hammer. Is it really worth the expense of staffing stations, resignalling lines and sweating your assets (rolling stock and infrastructure) that much, just for a handful of passengers? I can’t see a business case for it.

Exactly. How many people actually get off the 2200 VT service through the Trent Valley? More than 10 per station every night? How many would board a later service than that? It's not in the franchises because the DFT don't see a need for it.

HS2 will be the newer more modern signalled railway in the not too distant future.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Exactly. How many people actually get off the 2200 VT service through the Trent Valley? More than 10 per station every night? How many would board a later service than that? It's not in the franchises because the DFT don't see a need for it.

HS2 will be the newer more modern signalled railway in the not too distant future.

Having taken that service a number of times on previous occasions, I can attest to the fact that, at least in my carriages, there was quite a good loading for each station, with the service fully seated (though never standing) on departure.

I wonder how much unmet demand would be released if there was a later, or a cheaper, service about that time.

 

[pt_mad]

Having taken that service a number of times on previous occasions, I can attest to the fact that, at least in my carriages, there was quite a good loading for each station, with the service fully seated (though never standing) on departure.

I wonder how much unmet demand would be released if there was a later, or a cheaper, service about that time.

A cheaper service at the same time yes maybe. And thats exactly what there will be from May, a cheaper LNR service which may even extract some revenue or passengers away from VT as it's been the only late option until these changes.

 

[pt_mad]

On a deeper note, these seem to me to be the most drastic general changes on the West Coast since the VHF timetable was introduced in 2008. Progress. It's one place where genuine competition actually exists, which seemed to be part of what the privatised railway was selling.

I get the impression, and it's purely personal impression, that the new May timetable is about increased capacity, filling the gaps, earlier and later services, more through trains for more places. It's a lot it one go and fair play to LNR for their franchise.

It was seen by many as a big deal back in 2012 when LM rerouted Trent Valley services via the Fast Lines. This is all so much more all in one go. Would have loved to have known what LM proposed in their bid Vs the winners. Suspect it may have been less innovative.

 

[DaveHarries]

In what may be promising signs I went to Bristol Temple Meads earlier today (18th January) for the 1515 BRi-SVB and noticed a 4-car HST set sitting in Platform 4. Lead loco was 43016 with the rear loco being 43194. Carriages had electric doors on them with power points fitted throughout of the same type as those found on the 166s (ie. with USB sockets as well as plugs). Working code was 3Z25 so presumably a test run.

4-car Bristol to Taunton HSTs come May anyone?

Dave

 

[VT 390]

In what may be promising signs I went to Bristol Temple Meads earlier today (18th January) for the 1515 BRi-SVB and noticed a 4-car HST set sitting in Platform 4. Lead loco was 43016 with the rear loco being 43194. Carriages had electric doors on them with power points fitted throughout of the same type as those found on the 166s (ie. with USB sockets as well as plugs). Working code was 3Z25 so presumably a test run.

4-car Bristol to Taunton HSTs come May anyone?

Dave

At one point I think there was a proposal to have some Cardiff to Taunton services run as 4 carriage HST sets, though I am not sure if this is still the plan

 

[ATW158Xpress]

At one point I think there was a proposal to have some Cardiff to Taunton services run as 4 carriage HST sets, though I am not sure if this is still the plan

Yes this is still the plan to run Castle set HST’s alongside 158’s on Cardiff to Taunton and Exeter/Plymouth-Penzance to displace Turbo’s so they can run on Portsmouth services but don’t know when they start running on passenger services in Bristol.

 

[VT 390]

Yes this is still the plan to run Castle set HST’s alongside 158’s on Cardiff to Taunton and Exeter/Plymouth-Penzance to displace Turbo’s so they can run on Portsmouth services but don’t know when they start running on passenger services in Bristol.

Would it not make more sense to put 4 coach HST's of Portsmouth Line services and Tuobo's on Cardiff-Taunton services as this service has more frequent stops than Portsmouth which better for 165/166 units, also the HST could use the full linespeed Bristol to Cardiff.

 

[ATW158Xpress]

Would it not make more sense to put 4 coach HST's of Portsmouth Line services and Tuobo's on Cardiff-Taunton services as this service has more frequent stops than Portsmouth which better for 165/166 units, also the HST could use the full linespeed Bristol to Cardiff.

It would make more sence and comfort for Cardiff to Portsmouth to be loco hauled like in BR days but GWR not thinking common sence we stuck with 3+2 seats Turbos originally designed for commuter services with lack of tables and airline style seats with fold down trays for placing a tea/coffee or placing your phone to charge!