My idea for more trains at Ilkeston

[snowdon63]

Now Ilkeston Station is being used better than all expectations it is about time East Midlands Trains stop at Ilkeston every hour instead of the 6 trains per day as in the current timetable on the Norwich to Liverpool Lime Street service . Also the early morning Leeds to London St Pancras and the evening return which stops at Alfreton & Langley Mill could also stop at Ilkeston . More trains are needed at peak times to and from Nottingham to give a better service than just relying on the Northern Rail service from Leeds to Nottingham and Vice versa

 

[70014IronDuke]

Now Ilkeston Station is being used better than all expectations ...

Is it? Good. But have you got numbers to show this?

it is about time East Midlands Trains stop at Ilkeston every hour instead of the 6 trains per day as in the current timetable on the Norwich to Liverpool Lime Street service .

Some might argue that is six too many for this important service. To some extent it would depend on what journeys these passengers are taking, I suppose. If the vast majority are just to Nottingham and back, it would seem inappropriate to stop these long-distance EMT services at Ilkeston. If they are attracting a decent number of Manchester, Liverpool, Norwich passengers, well... good.

Also the early morning Leeds to London St Pancras and the evening return which stops at Alfreton & Langley Mill could also stop at Ilkeston . More trains are needed at peak times to and from Nottingham to give a better service than just relying on the Northern Rail service from Leeds to Nottingham and Vice versa

Isn't t about grandfather rights - or lack of them - for slam-door stock?

 

[louis97]

Isn't t about grandfather rights - or lack of them - for slam-door stock?

Lack of selective door opening on the EMT HST sets means they cannot call at Ilkeston. They can elsewhere on that route because of grandfather rights.

 

[edwin_m]

There's enough waiting time at Nottingham for EMT to stop at Ilkeston, and I'd guess no issue with overcrowding as long as EMT actually provides the four-car sets it is contracted to. But it would lengthen the journeys between Nottingham and further north by a couple of minutes.

 

[Starmill]

It would be good to focus on filling in the evening service a bit - it's currently very thin indeed with departures from Nottingham at 1917 and 2114 only. Of course the HST being unable to call is a major cause of this.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Is Ilkeston in danger of falling into the rail trap - service provision determines ridership in large part and without the ridership the service provision remains as it is?

 

[edwin_m]

Contrary to what some people on this forum seem to think, it's relatively straightforward in transport modelling terms to work out whether incremental service changes like this are worth doing, and therefore to determine whether "service provision constrains ridership" is fact or fiction. Once there's enough data on useage (which there probably isn't as yet) then it can effectively be extrapolated by a computer model to work out what the useage would be with a better train service.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Sorry, that is fair enough (though it is folklore that ridership is always bigger than predicted for re-openings) I was thinking of predicting ridership on new routes (stopping the Norwich to Liverpool for example) not increasing services on existing routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry, that is fair enough (though it is folklore that ridership is always bigger than predicted for re-openings) I was thinking of predicting ridership on new routes (stopping the Norwich to Liverpool for example) not increasing services on existing routes.

Stopping the Liverpool-Norwich would count as an existing route in this sense. Any extra passengers using the EMT service will mainly be to and from places already served by the Northern service, attracted by timings that happen to suit them better and by the greater frequency of trains meaning they don't run the risk of waiting nearly an hour for a train back. The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook is used to predict this, based on research in BR days on the percentage increase in passengers likely to arise from that sort of change and applying these factors to the existing ridership. There will also be more passengers travelling beyond Nottingham or Sheffield, who would start using the EMT service instead of connecting service, travelling by other modes or not making the journey at all, but they are likely to be few compared with the shorter-distance journeys. PDFH (or rather the MOIRA computer model that is based on it) should pick up these too.

PDFH can't be used for completely new services or for really drastic increases in service, because it is based on factoring up the existing demand and in those cases the existing demand would be zero or nearly so.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Interesting. Is the model accurate? How does it perform nowadays, especially if new services remove the need for a change? I was thinking of the added attraction of a direct journey, not only quicker but also more convenient and prediction of that effect must be more speculative. People do prefer direct journeys. I'm still troubled by the thought that rail planning is very conservative with a significant bias to the status quo.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting. Is the model accurate? How does it perform nowadays, especially if new services remove the need for a change? I was thinking of the added attraction of a direct journey, not only quicker but also more convenient and prediction of that effect must be more speculative. People do prefer direct journeys. I'm still troubled by the thought that rail planning is very conservative with a significant bias to the status quo.

PDFH/MOIRA is regarded as good enough to make a business case for service changes that are within its scope. As I noted above, this doesn't include new stations or new services where the same journey couldn't practically have been made by train previously. For example running MOIRA for High Wycombe to Oxford when the only routes were backtracking via Banbury or London or walking between stations in Bicester would not have been a good predictor of the people using the direct Chiltern service.

PDFH is based on "generalised journey time" which includes time to make connections, with extra weighting put on this time because time hanging around on a platform is perceived as more of a burden than time spent on a train. So it should take account of the benefits of a through journey in place of a change of trains. But as I suggested earlier the number of people travelling between Ilkeston and Manchester, Liverpool, Peterborough, Norwich etc will be far fewer than those going to Nottingham or Sheffield (especially as the existing EMT calls will cater for those for whom the times happen to be convenient or who aren't time-sensitive).

 

[a_c_skinner]

Hmm. I am grateful for your insight into what goes on but (without seeming rude for I am not) I'm asking if it really works and you are saying it ought to work. Do its predictions actually come true?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Hmm. I am grateful for your insight into what goes on but (without seeming rude for I am not) I'm asking if it really works and you are saying it ought to work. Do its predictions actually come true?

The nice thing about the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook is that is subject to regular updating in the light of emerging experience. There is a 'management council' and scope for TOC revenue experts, academics, etc. to feed in the latest research on how different types of traveller respond to fares, frequencies, interchange, performance and so forth.
Nothing is perfect of course but it is better than a whim for INCREMENTAL changes (which more EMT calls would be, now that the station is up and running).
Must say that my last couple of trips on Northern calls were rather disappointing but the strikes haven't helped, obviously.

 

[a_c_skinner]

That is how HM Treasury manages its model of the economy, adjusting it in the light of events and believing having gifted it with hindsight they will give it foresight too.

Andrew

 

[47802]

Does it really need more at present? the hourly Northern Service plus a limited number of Liverpool-Norwich seems fairly reasonable to me.

 

[ashworth]

The hourly northern service probably is currently perfectly adequate throughout the off peak part of the day and EMT Liverpool to Norwich services do not need to stop there. It’s at peak times, especially in the morning into Nottingham when the service is far from adequate, with only 3 useful arrivals in Nottingham at 0701, 0757 and 0902. Without running additional trains the service level cannot easily be improved as there are no EMT Liverpool to Norwich Services passing through before 0900. Currently the only possible additional service is the 0823 arrival in Nottingham but that is an EMT HST which reasons for not stopping has been discussed previously.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It is a good while since I travelled daily from Ilkeston to Nottingham but my recollection is such that it isn't a good journey by road at peak times and that a better train service should be well used. What is loading like on Ilkeston to Nottingham in the morning peak?

 

[LowLevel]

I have no opinion either way except to say that the existing Liverpool Norwich stoppers do not exactly do a roaring trade at Ilkeston.

 

[ashworth]

I have no opinion either way except to say that the existing Liverpool Norwich stoppers do not exactly do a roaring trade at Ilkeston.

Perhaps that is because the occasional Liverpool Norwich trains which do stop at Ilkeston are all at off peak times. Also there are only very few of these additional trains stopping at irregular timings. Therefore the regular hourly service operated by Northern are easier for passengers to remember timings in comparison to occasional extra trains at other times.

 

[Starmill]

The EMT services which stop were shifted around a bit at the December change I think.