Oxford -Birmingham Post Covid Plans?

[Kingham West]

I'm obviously not going to risk my job and publish internal documents.

They will enter the public domain shortly , the first one from LNER has bitten the dust , ScotRail and SWR have gone down like a bucket of Sick, I await the Chiltern one , and the XC one , I don’t want to see the BR circle of decline , but the operators have to make savings .

 

[Bletchleyite]

They will enter the public domain shortly , the first one from LNER has bitten the dust , ScotRail and SWR have gone down like a bucket of Sick, I await the Chiltern one , and the XC one , I don’t want to see the BR circle of decline , but the operators have to make savings .

TOCs have also realised that not only does operating longer trains on lower frequencies on simplified, self-contained routes and diagrams save money, it also makes the railway more reliable. Why that wasn't obvious to them, goodness knows.

 

[dk1]

TOCs have also realised that not only does operating longer trains on lower frequencies on simplified, self-contained routes and diagrams save money, it also makes the railway more reliable. Why that wasn't obvious to them, goodness knows.

As the XC example goes however it is at the loss of through journey opportunities & even almost the abandonment of stations such as Doncaster.

 

[JonathanH]

<'Deleted off topic post about there being no need for Doncaster to be on the XC network - as the next poster points out, Leeds is seeing more capacity as a result>

Notably, there is also increased capacity between Oxford and Coventry / Birmingham International because of the current arrangements so it isn't all bad switching to 1tph with double length trains.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm obviously not going to risk my job and publish internal documents.

Fair enough.

From a purely selfish point of view the current arrangement works well for Leeds as capacity is basically double what it was pre-Covid. But it must be frustrating for places like Doncaster which have been cut out almost entirely, and the North-east which has lost most of its faster services to the Midlands.

 

[The Planner]

TOCs have also realised that not only does operating longer trains on lower frequencies on simplified, self-contained routes and diagrams save money, it also makes the railway more reliable. Why that wasn't obvious to them, goodness knows.

Of course it was obvious to everyone, and to think otherwise is ridiculous. The issue was about creaming as much revenue out as possible and to do that you fill every piece of white space on a graph with a train.

 

[nw1]

It was too successful for its own good. It'd have been fine if the Voyagers had all been 7 or 8-car. Improving a service while reducing the capacity it provided (1 x HST > 2 x 4-car 220) was never going to work.

And that was the problem. Why did they not keep the HSTs and run them alongside the (same number of) Voyagers?

 

[JonathanH]

And that was the problem. Why did they not keep the HSTs and run them alongside the (same number of) Voyagers?

They weren't allowed to keep the HSTs due to a combination of them being needed elsewhere and not being able to afford to lease them.

It wouldn't have been relevant to the Oxford route in any case or to looking at options post-Covid.

 

[higthomas]

TOCs have also realised that not only does operating longer trains on lower frequencies on simplified, self-contained routes and diagrams save money, it also makes the railway more reliable. Why that wasn't obvious to them, goodness knows.

I'm sure everyone knew that. But higher frequencies make the railways much more attractive. People really don't want to wait an hour if they miss their train. Massively reducing frequencies across the network is not how you grow passenger numbers.

And given how many of the railways costs are fixed I'm not convinced it's going to be that great a money saving measure.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'm sure everyone knew that. But higher frequencies make the railways much more attractive. People really don't want to wait an hour if they miss their train. Massively reducing frequencies across the network is not how you grow passenger numbers.

And given how many of the railways costs are fixed I'm not convinced it's going to be that great a money saving measure.

This. Point to point travel with low frequencies is not as appealing as a higher frequency network with more defined routes. People can handle a change of train, it’s the wait that puts people off.