My idea - "bus-style" operation on branch lines

[Bletchleyite]

Originated from this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2829127#post2829127

I do wonder at times whether there would likely be a very plausible case for some branches to go over to high frequency bendibus operation, with the vehicles staying on the dedicated route and an interchange with rail services at one end...

Rather than actual buses, I have wondered about the idea of moving to a "bus on rails" type operation for genuinely segregated branch lines like the Conwy Valley (no real need for it to run through to Llandudno) - I don't mean Pacers, I mean genuine light rail, no or very much simplified signalling[1], open crossings with the train slowing right down to pass them so if obstructed it could stop, dare I say DOO with the driver selling tickets (plus TVMs at busy stations), etc - basically a "tram DMU" operated exactly as a bus would be.

Having used the Conwy Valley as an example, it'd work for St Albans (as was previously talked about, though that'd be OHLE powered rather than DMU), perhaps Kirkby-Wigan as a self-contained operation (Wigan-Skem when they get round to it)?

[1] In the case of the Conwy Valley a single sprung passing loop using simple train-staff working would do nicely - no need for any electronics at all, and no need for train staff and ticket because there's nowhere to send the trains at the south end, so you'd never practically end up with an asymmetric service requiring token working. Drivers could pass the train staff to each other with no signaller needed, or if no other train was due lock it up in a cabinet on the platform.

 

[Dhassell]

Its a good idea, but I think for that line a two hourly (roughly) service is plenty enough the trains never seem to be rammed full and there are always seats.

 

[daikilo]

Originated from this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2829127#post2829127



Rather than actual buses, I have wondered about the idea of moving to a "bus on rails" type operation for genuinely segregated branch lines like the Conwy Valley (no real need for it to run through to Llandudno) - I don't mean Pacers, I mean genuine light rail, no or very much simplified signalling[1], open crossings with the train slowing right down to pass them so if obstructed it could stop, dare I say DOO with the driver selling tickets (plus TVMs at busy stations), etc - basically a "tram DMU" operated exactly as a bus would be.

Having used the Conwy Valley as an example, it'd work for St Albans (as was previously talked about, though that'd be OHLE powered rather than DMU), perhaps Kirkby-Wigan as a self-contained operation (Wigan-Skem when they get round to it)?

[1] In the case of the Conwy Valley a single sprung passing loop using simple train-staff working would do nicely - no need for any electronics at all, and no need for train staff and ticket because there's nowhere to send the trains at the south end, so you'd never practically end up with an asymmetric service requiring token working. Drivers could pass the train staff to each other with no signaller needed, or if no other train was due lock it up in a cabinet on the platform.

Neil,

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. There is nothing fundamental preventing rail vehicles being lighter if the crash-worthiness rules can be relaxed. Spring points exist. Off-the-shelf alectronics are cheap so an automatic code from a central PC could be sent to a device on the vehicle to get round the issue of the staff. However, such vehicles effectively become tied (as is the 139) and lose the service flexibility available today. It may never the less be the right way to go.

Oh, and maybe it could even be driverless in not very long.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Its a good idea, but I think for that line a two hourly (roughly) service is plenty enough the trains never seem to be rammed full and there are always seats.

Yes, but the Winkle line was never rammed and only ran every 45 minutes. Look what happened when that went over to high frequency trams - it couldn't cope with the demand.

 

[northwichcat]

The most sensible financial thing to do is just close down the branch line service, that point being the alternative that you state.

So is that what you want to happen?

Would you then be happy if local services on the Macclesfield and Wilmslow lines are replaced by rail replacement bus services (where ENCTS passes are not accepted but Senior railcards are) and as a consequence of that it is decided the 19, 392 and part of the 130 bus routes are no longer viable and can be withdrawn?

 

[Via Bank]

Yes, but the Winkle line was never rammed and only ran every 45 minutes. Look what happened when that went over to high frequency trams - it couldn't cope with the demand.

Is that a result of there being less capacity, or more journeys? Because if there's a huge increase in demand that comes with increased frequency, surely that's a good thing?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I remember in about 1992 commuting on the West Croydon to Wimbledon line - usually a 2-EPB iirc. A rather infrequent service and hardly any passengers. A rail line and service no one wanted to run it seemed.

This line then became part of the Croydon Tramlink network circa 2000 and passenger numbers have increased dramatically. In the past year (2016) the line has had a much needed capacity enhancement - some doubling towards the Wimbledon end and a second platform added at Wimbledon.

So in approximately twenty years this line has gone from one that might as well be closed to one that is bursting at the seams. Each tram is full and standing and probably carries as many passengers as the solitary 2-EPB that plied the route *could have*.

A good business will look at the potential for growth and then, *if appropriate*, make investments to secure that growth. Not all businesses are like that - some are cynical and would not grow a business especially if they have enough on their plate already.

 

[edwin_m]

As I've just posted on another thread, this is one of those ideas that looks good in theory, but difficult to make it work in practice except for a few specialist routes such as Stourbridge. The conversions round Manchester and Croydon are different because they have been incorporated into larger tram networks so can realise economies of scale and connect to new destinations.

Firstly there are very few branches that can be totally segregated from the rest of the network to allow a vehicle with reduced crashworthiness to operate. It's possible limited sharing could be accepted but this would probably then end up facing the same sort of approval difficulties as the Rotherham tram-train.

Those branches where this separation might be possible are generally rural routes operated by a single unit. So either the unit needs to be main line compatible to get to a depot, or a depot needs building on each branch. And similarly each branch would need a second unit for maintenance or breakdown cover.

This works at Stourbridge because the Parry unit is so much cheaper than a 153 that it is possible to buy two of them and still have money left over for a depot. However on most other routes a faster and higher-capacity vehicle is needed - effectively a standard tram. Trams are more expensive than trains of equivalent capacity, and if tram-train features are needed that will increase the cost much more as it is effectively a bespoke rather than a standard design. Given that few of these routes have much signalling that can be eliminated, where is the cost saving coming from to pay for the vehicles?

 

[LAX54]

Originated from this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2829127#post2829127



Rather than actual buses, I have wondered about the idea of moving to a "bus on rails" type operation for genuinely segregated branch lines like the Conwy Valley (no real need for it to run through to Llandudno) - I don't mean Pacers, I mean genuine light rail, no or very much simplified signalling[1], open crossings with the train slowing right down to pass them so if obstructed it could stop, dare I say DOO with the driver selling tickets (plus TVMs at busy stations), etc - basically a "tram DMU" operated exactly as a bus would be.

Having used the Conwy Valley as an example, it'd work for St Albans (as was previously talked about, though that'd be OHLE powered rather than DMU), perhaps Kirkby-Wigan as a self-contained operation (Wigan-Skem when they get round to it)?

[1] In the case of the Conwy Valley a single sprung passing loop using simple train-staff working would do nicely - no need for any electronics at all, and no need for train staff and ticket because there's nowhere to send the trains at the south end, so you'd never practically end up with an asymmetric service requiring token working. Drivers could pass the train staff to each other with no signaller needed, or if no other train was due lock it up in a cabinet on the platform.

Like the LEV1 that trialled on the East Suffolk Line in the early 80's? A Leyland National bus on a rail chassis ?

 

[takno]

This works at Stourbridge...

Debatable. The PPM is noisy, still requires a complement of two staff to run, and really isn't much bigger than a couple of transit vans so leaves passengers behind all the time at peak periods.

 

[Bayum]

Even better, why not keep the lines, and put bus bodies on to train bogies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Reduction of cost, primarily, though with a substantially reduced cost there might be a possibility of increased frequency. The idea would be to bring the cost of operating rail on such branch lines much closer to that of operating a bus, while still offering at least some of the benefits of rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even better, why not keep the lines, and put bus bodies on to train bogies.

Because that doesn't really achieve the operational savings. I'm not just talking about cheaper, less crashworthy vehicles, I'm also talking bus or tram-style operations - so limited or no signalling (depending on the line), probably DOO, ticket sales from small stations from the driver, from TVMs to show to the driver from larger stations, open level crossings etc.

Basically, if people were proposing bustitution - how can we get the cost of segregated branch-line rail down as close as possible to the cost of a road bus, in order that we could keep rail, as I'm sure we will all agree here that *some* form of rail is better than closure and use of buses?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Debatable. The PPM is noisy, still requires a complement of two staff to run

The PPM has mirrors and isn't operated using railway staff (they wear LM uniforms but are contractors) - why on earth isn't it DOO? I can see absolutely no argument for the rail-borne equivalent of a Transit minibus to have a guard - it's nothing like a 12-car EMU darn Sarf.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So is that what you want to happen?

Would you then be happy if local services on the Macclesfield and Wilmslow lines are replaced by rail replacement bus services (where ENCTS passes are not accepted but Senior railcards are) and as a consequence of that it is decided the 19, 392 and part of the 130 bus routes are no longer viable and can be withdrawn?

Are you really saying that my local two rail lines which are somewhat equidistant from our residence, one via Stockport and Macclesfield and the other via Manchester Airport and Wilmslow, are serious loss-makers, which would bring about the scenario you so envisage?

You and I both know the way that Cheshire East council views bus services, as shown by the 27 service from Macclesfield to Knutsford.

 

[anti-pacer]

Yes, but the Winkle line was never rammed and only ran every 45 minutes. Look what happened when that went over to high frequency trams - it couldn't cope with the demand.

What's the Winkle Line?

 

[philthetube]

Reduction of cost, primarily, though with a substantially reduced cost there might be a possibility of increased frequency. The idea would be to bring the cost of operating rail on such branch lines much closer to that of operating a bus, while still offering at least some of the benefits of rail.

On the St. Albans branch this would result in reduced frequency, with line of sight level crossing and driver taking fares I doubt if even hourly could be managed.

 

[HSTEd]

On the St. Albans branch this would result in reduced frequency, with line of sight level crossing and driver taking fares I doubt if even hourly could be managed.

How many level crossings are there on the St Albans branch currently?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The PPM has mirrors and isn't operated using railway staff (they wear LM uniforms but are contractors) - why on earth isn't it DOO? I can see absolutely no argument for the rail-borne equivalent of a Transit minibus to have a guard - it's nothing like a 12-car EMU darn Sarf.

May I introduce the matter of the Leigh Guided Busway that runs on a very good service frequency and its modern "Vantage" liveried double-deck fleet of buses that run on the line of the former heavy rail Tyldesley loop line then down the East Lancashire Road with a number of bus lane sections, that is much newer than the Cambridge Guided Busway. The V1 service runs to Leigh bus station and the V2 runs into Atherton. Plans are already afoot for the introduction of the V3 service from Leigh to Manchester Royal Infirmary.

My wife and I went on both the V1 and V2 services recently and found the seating comfortable and the windows offering excellent viewing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My wife and I went on both the V1 and V2 services recently and found the seating comfortable and the windows offering excellent viewing.

Similarly the Cambs busway does have good views and the feeling of a rural branch line (and the kind of bouncy ride quality a Pacer is proud to deliver )

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What's the Winkle Line?

Would this be the "Sprat and Winkle" line that was opened by the Andover and Redbridge Railway?

 

[6Gman]

Its a good idea, but I think for that line a two hourly (roughly) service is plenty enough the trains never seem to be rammed full and there are always seats.

If that's a reference to the Conwy Valley line it has a three-hourly service, which may explain its lack of use!

 

[northwichcat]

Are you really saying that my local two rail lines which are somewhat equidistant from our residence, one via Stockport and Macclesfield and the other via Manchester Airport and Wilmslow, are serious loss-makers, which would bring about the scenario you so envisage?

You and I both know the way that Cheshire East council views bus services, as shown by the 27 service from Macclesfield to Knutsford.

We have no idea which services in the Northern franchise may or may not be profitable as we don't see a line by line breakdown of revenue. The fact that XC, Virgin and ATW serve the main stations on those routes possibly makes it harder for the Northern service to make money. You suggested it would make business sense to replace unprofitable services with buses so would that extend to the local services closest to your house?

 

[anti-pacer]

Yes, but the Winkle line was never rammed and only ran every 45 minutes. Look what happened when that went over to high frequency trams - it couldn't cope with the demand.

What's the Winkle Line?

 

[yorkie]

Would this be the "Sprat and Winkle" line that was opened by the Andover and Redbridge Railway?

That's the only line I can find with the name, but then the post wouldn't make sense. I wonder if the OP made a typing error, perhaps predictive text came up with 'Winkle', I suspect it's a reference to Wimbledon - Croydon.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We have no idea which services in the Northern franchise may or may not be profitable as we don't see a line by line breakdown of revenue. The fact that XC, Virgin and ATW serve the main stations on those routes possibly makes it harder for the Northern service to make money. You suggested it would make business sense to replace unprofitable services with buses so would that extend to the local services closest to your house?

On the Stockport line, there are commuter flows to both Bramhall and to Poynton and on the Styal line, there are East Didsbury and Heald Green with similar commuter flows, just naming two of the intermediary stations on both those lines.

Since I live almost two miles away from Prestbury station, out in the land of the rural areas with naught but narrow country lanes, it is debateable that the Queen may have visited Prestbury station more than I have done over the last 18 months.

 

[northwichcat]

On the Stockport line, there are commuter flows to both Bramhall and to Poynton and on the Styal line, there are East Didsbury and Heald Green with similar commuter flows, just naming two of the intermediary stations on both those lines.

Rather than try to defend the patronage of the line why don't you answer the question of whether you would support the replacement of services by buses if those services were deemed to be loss making?

You did earlier say

The most sensible financial thing to do is just close down the branch line service, that point being the alternative that you state.

So presumably your answer is yes, unless you're like that member of the House of Lords who backed fracking but only if it was done in the North East of England (well away from his area.)

 

[Carlisle]

The PPM has mirrors and isn't operated using railway staff (they wear LM uniforms but are contractors) - why on earth isn't it DOO? I can see absolutely no argument for the rail-borne equivalent of a Transit minibus to have a guard - it's nothing like a 12-car EMU darn Sarf.

I believe an earlier discussion revealed the PPM wasnt fitted with safety equipment like DSD/ Vigelence etc so wouldn't be allowed to run DOO in its preset form

 

[yorksrob]

That's the only line I can find with the name, but then the post wouldn't make sense. I wonder if the OP made a typing error, perhaps predictive text came up with 'Winkle', I suspect it's a reference to Wimbledon - Croydon.

The Canterbury & Whitstable Rly (one of the oldest railways in the world - supposedly had the oldest rail over road bridge ever) was nicknamed the crab & winkle line. However, it closed to passengers in the 30's, so I suspect wasn't what was being referred to in this thread.

 

[edwin_m]

The PPM has mirrors and isn't operated using railway staff (they wear LM uniforms but are contractors) - why on earth isn't it DOO? I can see absolutely no argument for the rail-borne equivalent of a Transit minibus to have a guard - it's nothing like a 12-car EMU darn Sarf.

Perhaps a safety issue? I doubt the PPM has a "deadman" or vigilance device to NR standards. If the driver were to be incapacitated then it would be quite nasty if it hit the buffers at full speed, slow as that is. The conductor may actually be trained as a driver or at least sufficiently to be able to stop the vehicle in an emergency.