Overcrowding on rural/'regional' services

[Halish Railway]

Back home & the overcrowding on the Cromer/Sheringham branch as well as the East Suffolk can be quite bad when a 755/3 is used. Makes me wonder how on earth we coped with 153s back in the day.

Oh yes, I did Norwich to Sheringham on a day when there was the Cromer Carnival on a single 755/3, not a fun experience. To rub it in, the departure boards at Norwich mistakenly said the train was formed of 7 coaches…

 

[RPI]

Just had a week in South Devon & things are much better these days with improved frequencies & most local services 3 & 4 cars in length.

Back home & the overcrowding on the Cromer/Sheringham branch as well as the East Suffolk can be quite bad when a 755/3 is used. Makes me wonder how on earth we coped with 153s back in the day.

When the South Devon services are correctly formed its great these days, sadly barely a day goes by where there isn't at least one 2 v 4 150 diagram, usually a set gets split to cover for a broken 16x

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2022 ==

A good example for me is Skegness in the summer.

4 car 156 lash up with an East Midlands Trains format with tonnes of luggage space and loads of table seats - absolutely perfect. You're going to have a good day, even if you do have work through one door at some of the halts.

2 car 158 with no room for suitcases or pushchairs - hell on earth and I genuinely struggle to get into my car to come to work when I know it's lined up to happen to me. Stressed and angry passengers and staff, just miserable. I know it was done to cater to a market but whoever signed off on removing all the luggage space on those trains to squeeze in a few more seats committed one of the worst "railway sins" of the last 15 years.

Similar in South Devon, get a 2/3 car 158 on an Exmouth Paignton diagram and its a nightmare with the slow doors and lack of space

 

[yorksrob]

This was the preparation for privatisation, make the BR service look bad due to financial restraints then when privatisation comes along the future looks good. A case of physiology on the behalf of the government of the day

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==

Do you run public transport for the public or for shareholders profit?

that’s completely wrong. It was done by Provincial (later, Regional Railways) management to save various parts if the railway. The decisions were taken in 1983-88, well before privatisation was on the cards.

the reason it was done is that modernisation era DM?us we’re so comprehensively unreliable, that new units would be far more productive. Also, no need for a guards van taking up 30% of the space of one coach.

Such reductions could, and should have been a temporary retrenchment. The real question is why there wasn't more rolling stock manufacture for these routes after privatisation, to handle the increases in passenger numbers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The real question is why there wasn't more rolling stock manufacture for these routes after privatisation, to handle the increases in passenger numbers.

There was, look at the 170s and 175s. The 175s freed up a lot of 156s for the North West, and the 170s freed up a lot of 150s for the West Midlands and South Wales, and freed up 158s for West Yorkshire.

The problem was that SRA and then DfT wouldn't agree to additional rolling stock for TOCs that were heavily subsidised, such as Northern. As an example, the displaced TPE 158s had to be funded by Yorkshire Forward and Merseyside PTE because DfT wouldn't pay and nor would the TOC- Serco even parked up the 142s displaced from the Oldham Loop until GMPTE forked out.

 

[yorksrob]

There was, look at the 170s and 175s. The 175s freed up a lot of 156s for the North West, and the 170s freed up a lot of 150s for the West Midlands and South Wales, and freed up 158s for West Yorkshire.

The problem was that SRA and then DfT wouldn't agree to additional rolling stock for TOCs that were heavily subsidised, such as Northern. As an example, the displaced TPE 158s had to be funded by Yorkshire Forward and Merseyside PTE because DfT wouldn't pay and nor would the TOC- Serco even parked up the 142s displaced from the Oldham Loop until GMPTE forked out.

Yes, those no growth franchises were a travesty.

The irony is that it was New Labour that instigated them. So much for assisting your natural supporters !

 

[Falcon1200]

This all begs the question of perspectives. On most routes there will be many times of the day when trains run almost empty and few travellers note or comment on that. A few trains will be rammed full for parts of the journey and the crowded masses will shout out.

Surges in leisure demand are much harder to work around, not least because they tend to be irregular, are greatly driven by specific events and by the weather.

Yesterday I joined an evening peak service out of Glasgow Central, formed of a 4-car Class 380; The train was absolutely rammed, I had to walk to the front coach just to be able to board, such was the number of people blocking the doorways, and stand in the middle of the coach. However at Mount Florida, 10 minutes into the journey, around 66% of the passengers left the train and everyone then got a seat for the remaining 20 minutes of the journey (as did passengers on the return 30 minute journey, being a contra-peak train). The reason the train was so busy ? Coldplay gig at Hampden Park. Scotrail provided additional trains but all services were still extremely busy.

It has everything to do with the profit motive which was long dominant in BR (not their fault, government policy) long before privatisation.

Or maybe something to do with the cost of providing peak-use only stock, something Beeching highlighted in his Report in the 1960s ! Just how much resource, not just stock but also Traincrew, maintenance, stabling and cleaning facilities can be justified for use just a tiny fraction of the time ? And how will it be paid for ?

 

[Trainbike46]

The difficulty with this is that it won't be possible to get all of the CLC line, Manchester - Sheffield, and Peterborough - Ely - Norwich prioritised for electrification. So a bimode will just be a less energy efficient diesel train. Same unfortunately applies for Birmingham / Coventry - Leicester - Peterborough, Stoke-on-Trent - Derby and Oxford - Bedford.

Why would a bimode 755 be less efficient than a diesel only class 231? They're basically the same train, and most DMUs are DEMUs nowadays anyway. Plus, the advantage of a bimode is of course that no matter what bit of the Liverpool-Norwich route gets electrified (isn't the last bit going into Liverpool already electrified?), the trains would be able to use it as soon as it's available. I could see Ely-Peterborough getting electrified as part of the Felixstowe-West midlands freight corridor, but you're right the rest is unlikely to be a priority soon. Then again, trains last 40 years, and a lot can happen in that time

 

[urbophile]

Why would a bimode 755 be less efficient than a diesel only class 231? They're basically the same train, and most DMUs are DEMUs nowadays anyway. Plus, the advantage of a bimode is of course that no matter what bit of the Liverpool-Norwich route gets electrified (isn't the last bit going into Liverpool already electrified?), the trains would be able to use it as soon as it's available. I could see Ely-Peterborough getting electrified as part of the Felixstowe-West midlands freight corridor, but you're right the rest is unlikely to be a priority soon. Then again, trains last 40 years, and a lot can happen in that time

Am I right in thinking that very little of the Liverpool- Norwich route runs under the wires? The first bit from Liverpool is only as far as South Parkway; there are a couple of miles going through Manchester, and then what? Once a couple of largish chunks are electrified, bi-mode would make sense. Until then, it's make do and mend.

 

[The exile]

Also, no need for a guards van taking up 30% of the space of one coach.

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!

 

[dk1]

Am I right in thinking that very little of the Liverpool- Norwich route runs under the wires? The first bit from Liverpool is only as far as South Parkway; there are a couple of miles going through Manchester, and then what? Once a couple of largish chunks are electrified, bi-mode would make sense. Until then, it's make do and mend.

The only worthwhile section currently is the roughly 30 miles from Grantham-Peterborough which of course doesn’t even count for those operating via Stamford.

 

[TheBigD]

Am I right in thinking that very little of the Liverpool- Norwich route runs under the wires? The first bit from Liverpool is only as far as South Parkway; there are a couple of miles going through Manchester, and then what? Once a couple of largish chunks are electrified, bi-mode would make sense. Until then, it's make do and mend.

It's been asked before. Like you've already noted Liverpool to Liverpool South Parkway and Deansgate to Hazel Grove, then Grantham to Peterborough, Ely North Junction to Ely, and Trowse Junction to Norwich.

 

[Taunton]

Anecdotal evidence I know, but I don't even think these services are even considered when overcrowding data is published. Does anyone else have experiences like this to share? I would particularly like to hear from regular users who have a better idea of what day-to-day service is like on specific lines.

The arrival of electric services out of Paddington has fortunately put paid to nonsenses like GWR sending out 2-car trains on commuter services from there to Slough and Reading (despite people on here saying I was wrong, or must have seen a Greenford train, or other excuses), which is surely measured, but the shuttle from Slough to Windsor is one of those "twigs" which can have notable peak period overcrowding, and sometimes even people left behind. Seems to be random whether a 2-car or 3-car set is provided, even the latter can be overloaded. I doubt such poor service ever makes it into any official report, because nobody would even think it was an issue, and the ticket data is probably lost in the overall mass. It's been like this for years there. Elizabeth Line making it a more practical way from Windsor to London will only exacerbate it.

 

[yorksrob]

The arrival of electric services out of Paddington has fortunately put paid to nonsenses like GWR sending out 2-car trains on commuter services from there to Slough and Reading (despite people on here saying I was wrong, or must have seen a Greenford train, or other excuses), which is surely measured, but the shuttle from Slough to Windsor is one of those "twigs" which can have notable peak period overcrowding, and sometimes even people left behind. Seems to be random whether a 2-car or 3-car set is provided, even the latter can be overloaded. I doubt such poor service ever makes it into any official report, because nobody would even think it was an issue, and the ticket data is probably lost in the overall mass. It's been like this for years there. Elizabeth Line making it a more practical way from Windsor to London will only exacerbate it.

The Windsor line Should be a natural for electrification.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The Windsor is a 2 car, unless there is an event on. Getting units off the branch during the day is a real issue so what goes on in the morning tends to stay there all day.

GWR wouldn’t have normally diagrammed a 2 car out of Paddington in the peak, unless they were short of stock. There were a few positioning moves at start and end of the day (and some of the overnights) that were regularly 2 car but the usual peak and off peak formations used to vary between 3 and 6, depending on the train.

When the Greenford service was a through service that was always 2 car (nothing longer would fit on the branch) but a 2 car Turbo looked a lot less incongruous at Paddington than a single bubble car did!

 

[MJ]

Probably doesnt help that someone seems to have been marketing it to coach operators as " the cut price Jacobean" featuring the Harry Potter Viaduct!

This! Travelled Fort William - Glenfinnan last week for a hiking trip. Was very annoying to find almost a full carriage of the single 156 reserved for a coach party, resulting in the service leaving Fort William full and standing. To top it off, members of the coach party were then moaning at passengers standing in the aisle blocking the view!

 

[AgeoftheTrain7]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention of TfW here.
The Cambrian Coast line can have it's problems in the high season, when the train divides at Mach. Heart of Wales is pretty stable but I've seen people standing on 1-car 153s.

West Wales lines are normally reliable and you're able to get a seat, but the late night 2315 CDF to Carmarthen is often full and standing, particularly if it's only 1 or 2 153s. That gets pretty rural after Swansea and the end of the SWML.

 

[Taunton]

This! Travelled Fort William - Glenfinnan last week for a hiking trip. Was very annoying to find almost a full carriage of the single 156 reserved for a coach party, resulting in the service leaving Fort William full and standing. To top it off, members of the coach party were then moaning at passengers standing in the aisle blocking the view!

Same happens regularly on the Settle & Carlisle. Someone at DfT should point out to the operators that the (substantial) subsidies paid to operators of these very rural lines, with the agreed stock allocation, is for the provision of a public service, and if they wish to have a commercial hire arrangement with these coach companies they can then provide their own additional vehicles for it.

 

[BrianW]

Same happens regularly on the Settle & Carlisle. Someone at DfT should point out to the operators that the (substantial) subsidies paid to operators of these very rural lines, with the agreed stock allocation, is for the provision of a public service, and if they wish to have a commercial hire arrangement with these coach companies they can then provide their own additional vehicles for it.

I guess that in a way that's the Jacobite approach?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same happens regularly on the Settle & Carlisle. Someone at DfT should point out to the operators that the (substantial) subsidies paid to operators of these very rural lines, with the agreed stock allocation, is for the provision of a public service, and if they wish to have a commercial hire arrangement with these coach companies they can then provide their own additional vehicles for it.

To be fair, they could hardly stop the coach companies purchasing tickets at the public fare.

 

[Taunton]

To be fair, they could hardly stop the coach companies purchasing tickets at the public fare.

But then they wouldn't have a reserved coach.

 

[RT4038]

Same happens regularly on the Settle & Carlisle. Someone at DfT should point out to the operators that the (substantial) subsidies paid to operators of these very rural lines, with the agreed stock allocation, is for the provision of a public service, and if they wish to have a commercial hire arrangement with these coach companies they can then provide their own additional vehicles for it.

Nonsense. The trains are provided as a provision of a public service for all comers. Trains have seats which are reservable. The coach company reserved the seats. The subsidising authority (who get all the fares collected) want to minimise the quantity of subsidy and are only too happy to get the coach passengers revenue.

The overcrowding only happens on a relatively small percentage of trains, over relatively short distances, per year. It is not economic to provide additional rolling stock for such occasions, so unfortunately passengers have to lump it, or wait for another train.

 

[Trainbike46]

Nonsense. The trains are provided as a provision of a public service for all comers. Trains have seats which are reservable. The coach company reserved the seats. The subsidising authority (who get all the fares collected) want to minimise the quantity of subsidy and are only too happy to get the coach passengers revenue.

though, getting a large number of reservations in one go, such as a coach party, should suggest that maybe that service should be strengthened to accomodate all the extra passengers

 

[bramling]

Nonsense. The trains are provided as a provision of a public service for all comers. Trains have seats which are reservable. The coach company reserved the seats. The subsidising authority (who get all the fares collected) want to minimise the quantity of subsidy and are only too happy to get the coach passengers revenue.

The overcrowding only happens on a relatively small percentage of trains, over relatively short distances, per year. It is not economic to provide additional rolling stock for such occasions, so unfortunately passengers have to lump it, or wait for another train.

If that’s the case, the TOC should at least be making it clear which services are likely to be reserved in this way, to give other users the option to avoid them.

To be honest I tend to agree with the view that this practice is unacceptable, particularly on services which operate short trains.

 

[Killingworth]

I guess that in a way that's the Jacobite approach?

When we took the Jacobite last year a couple opposite us had been happy to pay the much higher fare just to travel from Fort William to Mallaig on that train en route to Skye as part of their tour of Scotland. It was a miserable day with mist hanging low down the hills and steamed up windows! They'd clearly enjoyed the experience neverthelss.

But that's not a typical rural route.

I've just seen Northern's two car 11.14 from Sheffield to Manchester arrive at Dore full and standing. The preceding 11.11 TPE service sailed through empty, a Nova 3 on a training run.

No seats anywhere for the 80 year old couple with stick and large suitcase or another older lady with prosthetic arm. At least they got aboard. A yoing man with infant daughter in pushchair declined to attempt boarding. Back to the car to drive to Hathersage for the open air swimming pool. He had a ticket.

This maybe should be in the TPE moaning thread, but as far as the passengers I saw were concerned their grouse was with Northern.

Apparently they can't get more than 2 car trains into Sheffield due to lack of platform space at that time. To which a lay person might ask 'why is scarce platform space being used for empty trains?' Particularly on the Friday before a Bank Holiday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then they wouldn't have a reserved coach.

If that’s the case, the TOC should at least be making it clear which services are likely to be reserved in this way, to give other users the option to avoid them.

To be honest I tend to agree with the view that this practice is unacceptable, particularly on services which operate short trains.

With these being 15x operated, this would seem a reasonable use for a couple of 153s. If a tour company books, bang one on for them.

 

[tbtc]

The Windsor line Should be a natural for electrification.

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)

 

[Trainbike46]

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)

Two points:
-Why doesn't the service operate more frequently if the unit spends so much time stationary in the current set-up? If a single journey takes 6 minutes, a single unit should be able to run every 20 minutes without any problem (6 minutes out, 6 minutes back, 3 minutes at one end, 5 at the other)
-generally EMUs are cheaper than DMUs, so using a single EMU unit is not more wasteful than using a single DMU unit
-Weren't people just complaining about how the current DMU is frequently overcrowded? if so 4 coaches wouldn't really be overkill anyway

 

[JohnRegular]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Windsor, which is basically a non London Tube line, would be perfect for a Tube interior battery 230. Perhaps it could be moved there once the Greenford trial is done (which I guess needed to be more complex to be realistic, e.g. have intermediate stops)?

 

[haggishunter]

Nonsense. The trains are provided as a provision of a public service for all comers. Trains have seats which are reservable. The coach company reserved the seats. The subsidising authority (who get all the fares collected) want to minimise the quantity of subsidy and are only too happy to get the coach passengers revenue.

The overcrowding only happens on a relatively small percentage of trains, over relatively short distances, per year. It is not economic to provide additional rolling stock for such occasions, so unfortunately passengers have to lump it, or wait for another train.

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