Overcrowding on rural/'regional' services

[Killingworth]

Wait for another train on a line with 3 trains per day?

To be fair, there are 4 trains from Fort William to Mallaig today at 8.30, 12.08, 16.09 and 22.09, the first 3 all 4 car so Scotrail seem to be doing as much as they reasonably can.

Waiting for the next is unattractive for those only wishing to experience the scenery. Locals will probably be more resigned to any standing.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The answer for a lot of the longish distance regional services is fairly simple if fairly expensive- a new fleet of bi-modes. Probably something not unlike a 755.
I expect one type of train would be suitable for all these types of routes- Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Portsmouth, 'XC-lite', etc., which all seem to be regularly very busy, and some of which have poorly suited, aging diesel trains that spend a decent amount of time under the wires. Get a nice big order in, enough to provide a boost to capacity and maybe even replace some of the oldest trains on the network with cascades.
No doubt this isn't going to happen any time soon, but it has to happen sometime, surely? How long can the DfT drag its heels for? The 150s, 153s and 156s aren't going to last forever.

To be fair this is what greater Anglia did, Sheringham Cromer to Norwich and Yarmouth/ Lowestoft have no wires. To me it's always made me wonder what the saving is having the 3 car version, could have simplified the fleet further with having just 4 car versions then there's no trying to match traffic with size of train.

 

[Trainbike46]

To be fair this is what greater Anglia did, Sheringham Cromer to Norwich and Yarmouth/ Lowestoft have no wires. To me it's always made me wonder what the saving is having the 3 car version, could have simplified the fleet further with having just 4 car versions then there's no trying to match traffic with size of train.

The GA order replaced a mix of 1,2 and 3 car trains with a larger number of 3 and 4 car train so was a massive capacity increase already. I don't think there was the budget for a full 4 car fleet, tbh

 

[yorksrob]

A self contained branchline which connects to the rest of the railway at a station which is already electrified seems a really good candidate

However I wonder whether the thing that holds back the Windsor line’s case is that of what stick to operate it with?

A 165 clearly isn’t ideal but it’s part of a common batch of trains based at Reading, able to get itself along the GWML at fast enough speed when it does need cycling over with the rest of the “pool”, fairly standard stock

Electrification would mean… what? A four coach 387/1, the EMU that runs GWR’s non-intercity services through Slough? Could be, but is this best use of it on a two mile journey (that a DMU is scheduled to take about six minutes for)?

Since the railway seems to generally have taken the view that “things which warrant more than just four coaches are worthy of electrification, things which cannot ever justify four coaches aren’t busy enough generally aren’t going to be priorities to write up “ (a crude summary, but I hope you get the point), we don’t really do many services that only require short EMUs, so there’s not much to offer to a route like the Windsor branch (without going OTT and chucking a four coach 100mph train on it)

There are examples of short EMUs working, of course, the Hove shuttle had single 315s, but it feels significant that we closed routes with short EMUs in South London and replaced them with trams instead

It’d be more suited to something like a 399, but then that’d mean a micro-class, and all the costs that this entails (even if you did the other Thames valley branches - Marlow/ Henley, it’s very inefficient)

I suspect you’ll probably prefer something like the 387, and fair enough, but the cost of allocating one unit a day just to do a total of six miles every hour - it feels a bit wasteful. But then something needs to be done about these lines that feel like Good electrification candidates on paper but we don’t seem to know how to actually do them

(Sorry, this is maybe doing off into a whole new thread, but I hope you get the idea)

I suppose the point is now that the main line's electrified, you could bung on whatever's running locally.

I'm assuming the local EMU's are 4 carriage, so that would be ideal for the line for the tourist traffic.

 

[dk1]

The GA order replaced a mix of 1,2 and 3 car trains with a larger number of 3 and 4 car train so was a massive capacity increase already. I don't think there was the budget for a full 4 car fleet, tbh

There has recently been internal rumours of an order for 14 additional trailer vehicles for 325-338 as well as two additional 745/0s. Can’t see it happening though, nice as it would be.

 

[Trainbike46]

There has recently been internal rumours of an order for 14 additional trailer vehicles for 325-338 as well as two additional 745/0s. Can’t see it happening though, nice as it would be.

That would bring it up to an all 4-car fleet, right? Presumably would require extra engines in the motor coaches as well.
That would be great though!
Two extra 745/0 would be amazing too!

I don't see the DfT/Treasury agreeing to it, but then again Liz Truss is an MP for Norfolk isn't she? I really hope those orders happen!

 

[dk1]

That would bring it up to an all 4-car fleet, right? Presumably would require extra engines in the motor coaches as well.
That would be great though!
Two extra 745/0 would be amazing too!

I don't see the DfT/Treasury agreeing to it, but then again Liz Truss is an MP for Norfolk isn't she? I really hope those orders happen!

Well she had a selfie on Ely North Jcn a while back but has done precious little on that front.

Yes, it would bring the whole bimode fleet into a more common user affair than now although there are issues with the Sudbury branch so might not be all 14. Don’t sign the route so not sure exactly what the problems are.

 

[Craig1122]

Yes it's like the pandemic never happened on the East Anglian branch lines. Odd to think the Stadlers have been operating over 3 years now on these routes. Such a game changer.

Growth Norwich-Sheringham has been phenomenal. When I first used the line in Regional Railways days back in the mid nineties a single 153 was sufficient for what was basically a 2 hourly service with a couple of extras.

Once Anglia introduced an hourly service the odd appearance of a 153 instead of the usual 156 could mean people left behind. The fact that people are now talking about over crowded 4 car trains is incredible.

 

[dk1]

Growth Norwich-Sheringham has been phenomenal. When I first used the line in Regional Railways days back in the mid nineties a single 153 was sufficient for what was basically a 2 hourly service with a couple of extras.

Once Anglia introduced an hourly service the odd appearance of a 153 instead of the usual 156 could mean people left behind. The fact that people are now talking about over crowded 4 car trains is incredible.

Couldn’t agree with you more. This line has gone from strength to strength with student, commuter & leisure travel over the years.

 

[Halish Railway]

One thing about this discussion is that is will the anecdotes and data supporting a narrative of high patronage and overcrowding on rural routes incentivise the DfT to invest in rural routes, removing the constraints on capacity such as single tracking, short platforms, restrictive signalling and a lack of rolling stock?

In addition it could provide an incentive to create more rural routes, such as extending Manchester to Clitheroe services to Carlisle via Settle or building a chord from the Bentham line to the WCML to enable a Leeds to Windermere to run, a service that from experience I can tell you would be very successful due to the popularity of breaks and days out in the Lake District, as well as the notoriety of the A65.

 

[Craig1122]

Couldn’t agree with you more. This line has gone from strength to strength with student, commuter & leisure travel over the years.

Given that an hourly service is still pretty inconvenient for a lot of users I have to wonder how much more growth could be unlocked by going half hourly, at least as far as North Walsham or Cromer.

 

[dk1]

Given that an hourly service is still pretty inconvenient for a lot of users I have to wonder how much more growth could be unlocked by going half hourly, at least as far as North Walsham or Cromer.

Been on the cards for several years. Cromer would be more difficult but Walsham would dovetail perfectly.

 

[Craig1122]

Been on the cards for several years. Cromer would be more difficult but Walsham would dovetail perfectly.

What's the issue with Cromer, or indeed Sheringham? (although I suspect you couldn't justify Sheringham outside holidays). At first glance it always seemed as though the single tracking left a remarkable amount of extra capacity compared to the service being operated at the time and that the 2 platforms at Cromer would allow one extra tph.

 

[dk1]

What's the issue with Cromer, or indeed Sheringham? (although I suspect you couldn't justify Sheringham outside holidays). At first glance it always seemed as though the single tracking left a remarkable amount of extra capacity compared to the service being operated at the time and that the 2 platforms at Cromer would allow one extra tph.

It’s the single line. Wouldn’t lend itself to an efficient half hourly service.

 

[Bevan Price]

Similarly - a reduction of “all that wasted space” in the form of carriage end vestibules. For “wasted space”, read “extra standing room”. The loss of seating capacity from 5 Mk1s to a class 155 wasn’t enormous - the loss of standing space was huge!

Incorrect. A 2 coach Class 155 had around 140 to 150 seats. Each Mark 1 or Mark 2 coach (SO) had up to 64 seats, with 32 seats in a BSO.
SKs or BSKs had the same numbers of seats when the armrests were raised. So a 5 coach Mark 1 or 2 had around 280 seats - so a 4 coach 155 formation was necessary to match a 5 coach loco-hauled set. Even with the armrests not raised, 5 coach Mark 1 sets had over 200 seats.

 

[TheBigD]

Incorrect. A 2 coach Class 155 had around 140 to 150 seats. Each Mark 1 or Mark 2 coach (SO) had up to 64 seats, with 32 seats in a BSO.
SKs or BSKs had the same numbers of seats when the armrests were raised. So a 5 coach Mark 1 or 2 had around 280 seats - so a 4 coach 155 formation was necessary to match a 5 coach loco-hauled set. Even with the armrests not raised, 5 coach Mark 1 sets had over 200 seats.

As built, the 155s had 160 seats.

 

[MaidaVale]

Services between Birmingham and Shrewsbury (both slow WMR and faster TfW runs) regularly get absolutely rammed, often completely full to the brim in the evenings, although many afternoon services can also have every seat taken. On Fridays and Saturdays, full trains basically extend the whole way throughout the day, including off peak times.

TfW are beginning to run 6 car 158 sets increasingly more frequently on these services, although still remains a fairly rare but pleasant surprise. If TfW had the sets to enable it, every station called at between New Street and Shrewsbury is able to accommodate 8 or 10 car sets (with the exception of Smethwick Galton Bridge, although LNWR run 8 cars with SDO regularly).

WMR services are a bit more restrictive, as New Street 4C can only fit 4-5 carriages, and many other smaller stops such as Bilbrook requiring the use of SDO for even 4 coaches. It is however irking when waiting for an evening service with a completely packed out platform full of people, only to see it turn up as a 2 car 170. Things don't often end well.

 

[yorksrob]

Leeds - Lancaster has been very busy on this bank holiday monday, with nearly every seat taken from beyond Skipton.

What a joy to have a 158 with fresh moquette, compared to the Merseyrail pacer complete with blocked toilet of years gone by !

 

[BrianW]

One thing about this discussion is that is will the anecdotes and data supporting a narrative of high patronage and overcrowding on rural routes incentivise the DfT to invest in rural routes, removing the constraints on capacity such as single tracking, short platforms, restrictive signalling and a lack of rolling stock?

In addition it could provide an incentive to create more rural routes, such as extending Manchester to Clitheroe services to Carlisle via Settle or building a chord from the Bentham line to the WCML to enable a Leeds to Windermere to run, a service that from experience I can tell you would be very successful due to the popularity of breaks and days out in the Lake District, as well as the notoriety of the A65.

Showing my ignorance here- do TOCs (still) have to pay to hire each carriage, thus having incentives to run short trains?
I can see the difficulties regarding 'strengthening' for particular services, short platforms, cutting out what was seen as 'redundant track' etc.
Is there no 'contingency'/ 'spare' stock, or staff, these days?

 

[Bald Rick]

Services between Birmingham and Shrewsbury (both slow WMR and faster TfW runs) regularly get absolutely rammed, often completely full to the brim in the evenings, although many afternoon services can also have every seat taken. On Fridays and Saturdays, full trains basically extend the whole way throughout the day, including off peak times.

Not last Friday they weren’t! Bay of 4 to myself on 4 separate trains afternoon and evening.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Showing my ignorance here- do TOCs (still) have to pay to hire each carriage, thus having incentives to run short trains?
I can see the difficulties regarding 'strengthening' for particular services, short platforms, cutting out what was seen as 'redundant track' etc.
Is there no 'contingency'/ 'spare' stock, or staff, these days?

I thought that basically the cost of rolling stock 'leasing' (I realise that some fleets like the IEPs are different) along with other costs such as fuel, staff and enhancements was now paid by the DfT rather than the 'TOCs' where they still exist. The DfT also get all the revenue. The 'TOC' gets a largely fixed 'fee' of a small percentage of 'turnover'.

This response is obviously not intended to cover Scotland, Wales, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line and Open Access.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Showing my ignorance here- do TOCs (still) have to pay to hire each carriage, thus having incentives to run short trains?
I can see the difficulties regarding 'strengthening' for particular services, short platforms, cutting out what was seen as 'redundant track' etc.
Is there no 'contingency'/ 'spare' stock, or staff, these days?

Worse that that - as having to pay extra mileage on rolling stock above the base , there are extra charges per vehicle for having the temerity to call at stations ......(above the basic timetable) - unless of course things have changed since I retired.

Perhaps this can be rectified in the future. It explains for example how Thameslink was wedded to a 4 car weekend service back in the day , despite the franchise agreement hopefully asking for seats to be provided for all off peak leisure travellers........persuading to run longer trains could be challenging.

(my view was that we provided extra capacity where needed - such that Euston to Birmingham trains would become 8 at Northampton towards the West Midlands when there was something significant on at Brum or the NEC and likewise towards London when there was something material happening like Football / Armistice Day etc. Careful demand management , though I suspect some of these "nonsense" charges were not actually raised.....)

Yes the DfT picks up the charges now.......but such was the nonsense about running extra trains for those who wished to use the railway , I recall some fruitless discussions with RT about some extras on the North London Line where their permission was dependant on "profit sharing" ........pause for hollow laughter.

Of course the trains did not run and the schools and football traffic suffered accordingly.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought that basically the cost of rolling stock 'leasing' (I realise that some fleets like the IEPs are different) along with other costs such as fuel, staff and enhancements was now paid by the DfT rather than the 'TOCs' where they still exist. The DfT also get all the revenue. The 'TOC' gets a largely fixed 'fee' of a small percentage of 'turnover'.

This response is obviously not intended to cover Scotland, Wales, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line and Open Access.

Most leases have a mileage based charge, and a mileage limit above which higher charges apply.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The DfT do now pick up the bill for TOC costs and they control what the TOC can spend - the DfT signs off the base timetable and the stock formations used in that base timetable. They also have to sign off any emergency timetables if there is insufficient staff.

TOCs on an NRC get a fixed basic fee and a performance related fee. It isn’t now a % on turnover - the base fee is fixed on signing and there is a maximum amount that can be earned in performance fees.