Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The issue is not always the lack of sat navs but how they are used. Drivers put in the station postcode and not all RRB stops are at that postcode. Some postcodes are larger too so the specifics may not be known.
A driver knew the route but a recent road closure/road works can mean they don't know another way.
Also not all drivers have sat navs as they are unprepared for all eventualities (thought they were on other work or other route).
If you ran 4tph, didn't stop all of them at Horsham and Angermering, recast your own trains to remove the 15mins patching time and then removed the non-stop buses from Three Bridges, you would have Brighton passengers using trains and not buses.
Not sure why you are insinuating this would jeopardise the safety of track workers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If Glasgow drivers were Glasgow drivers not Avanti drivers you would find a service already fully resourced from Glasgow to Preston which suddenly isn't running.
Hence the issue (manufactured by balkanisation) of LNER finding 'additional resources' to extend their trains from Edinburgh can be resolved.
But there would be no desire on the part of LNER (or any other operator) to run additional trains to Glasgow via the east coast - drivers or no drivers. As soon as most people saw the journey times from Glasgow to London via the east coast, they would opt to fly.
Again, when I refer to resourcing the service, I’m mainly talking about rolling stock. Your point here might hold weight in some scenarios but not when it comes to Glasgow to London. There’s a reason why the Kings Cross to Glasgow Central services were cut back so radically. They’re neither viable nor useful for anyone, Cross Country easily picked up the Glasgow to NE England traffic and even that has been cut back during Covid. Nobody cares about ‘Glasgow’ drivers being able to drive east coast rolling stock because it’s of little value.
If you ran 4tph, didn't stop all of them at Horsham and Angermering, recast your own trains to remove the 15mins patching time and then removed the non-stop buses from Three Bridges, you would have Brighton passengers using trains and not buses.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted.
This wouldn't work for numerous reasons, not least the fact that there would be no spare platform capacity at Brighton, for an adittional 2tph formed of 12 coaches.
Secondly, good luck getting those additional two trains an hour through Arundel Junction.
Also, the line speed through Horsham is so slow, that not stopping trains there would practically make no difference to the journey time. Also, you can't just recast your own trains, as if you start moving the Portsmouth/Southampton services, this starts messing up the Wessex route and suddenly you find you need to massively recast SWR, GWR and Cross Country. And believe you me, you have no chance of moving Cross Country. Can you see the problems with your solution now?
Copyhold was 9 days continuous closure. Apparently it then needs another weekend of follow up, and there are other closures on other dates this calendar year.
The Network Rail PR site claims that Keymer Junction was relaid in 2014 in 4 weekends.
So it seems that as well as making no effort to get 5 years of renewals between Three Bridges and Keymer Junction into the same closure, a similar job takes 37% longer than 8 years ago, despite being done in fewer possessions.
To the uninformed observer, the bit between Keymer and Brighton has a fairly painless diversion via Lewes. I would take a blockade north of there twice every 30 years, Christmas week and maybe one weekend a year, which is a good deal more than your lifespan suggests is required, but what we get something of the order of 16 days a year of buses, and even that isn't as much as it seems the engineers would wish?
Just as well you don’t plan the work then as the railway would be closed within a year or two.
Seriously, rather than throwing rocks at it, go and ask nicely if you can spend some time with the blockade planners so you can understand the constraints they have to work with and see how they solve the puzzle. They’ll be more than happy to listen to alternative proposals you might have.
So, departures from Three Bridges are 6tph towards Horsham:
xx29 Arun Valley stops
xx46 Brighton
xx53 Horsham
The Horsham service deals with stops at Crawley, Ifield and Littlehaven. The Arun Valley service does Crawley and the stations South of Horsham. The Arun Valley train calls at Arundel at xx11, the Brighton passes at xx20.
How is a second Brighton service going to fit in each half hour, bearing in mind the conflict at Arundel Junction?
You suggest cancelling the Peterborough service, presumably terminating it at Gatwick since there are already other trains terminating at Three Bridges. At best, there is a ten minute gap between the two Brighton services then but there is likely to be no way to deal with eight reversals at Littlehampton in each hour, plus trains towards Barnham.
I imagine you might suggest that the Arun Valley and Coastway is entirely turned over to limited stop services towards Brighton and those routes instead are served by buses, but realistically the impact on journey times for the majority of passengers is actually served by most passengers from Brighton going by bus to Three Bridges.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted.
This wouldn't work for numerous reasons, not least the fact that there would be no spare platform capacity at Brighton, for an adittional 2tph formed of 12 coaches.
Secondly, good luck getting those additional two trains an hour through Arundel Junction.
Also, the line speed through Horsham is so slow, that not stopping trains there would practically make no difference to the journey time. Also, you can't just recast your own trains, as if you start moving the Portsmouth/Southampton services, this starts messing up the Wessex route and suddenly you find you need to massively recast SWR, GWR and Cross Country. And believe you me, you have no chance of moving Cross Country. Can you see the problems with your solution now?
I can see you don't want to find a solution, so you are dining out finding problems instead.
If you supported the idea of thousands of customers using trains rather than buses (one diversion per hour today) then you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea of a plan that doesn't treat the entirety of the existing timetable as completely immovable.
You are better at finding problems than identifying solutions.
Passengers don't want to go on buses and why should they to maintain a service at Faygate and Amberley?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I can see you don't to find a solution, so you are dining out finding problems instead.
If you supported the idea of thousands of customers using trains rather than buses (one diversion per hour today) then you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea of a plan that doesn't treat the entirety of the existing timetable as completely immovable.
Considering there is no Saturday service at Faygate I'm not sure what you are on about.
Plus the Arun Valley Line between Horsham and Arundel Junction has plenty of spare capacity.
The reason why such a service wouldn't work is Arundel Junction itself, the West Coastway and the line between Three Bridges and Horsham as it's got quite a poor headway. Capacity at Three bridges would be an issue and any service that ran without any extra time would perform abysmallly.
Correct. Almost every big junction renewal has a follow up possession the following weekend.
It’s not at all similar. I don’t know if you are familiar with both those junctions, but Copyhold is more than twice the size of Keymer.
Just as well you don’t plan the work then as the railway would be closed within a year or two.
Seriously, rather than throwing rocks at it, go and ask nicely if you can spend some time with the blockade planners so you can understand the constraints they have to work with and see how they solve the puzzle. They’ll be more than happy to listen to alternative proposals you might have.
No constructive engagement at all. I can't find above anything above that is either constructive or informative. I do note you haven't made any comment about the options for diverting when the line is closed south of Burgess Hill vs north of it. By your own yardstick it ought to require very few weekend possessions, yet gets rather a lot, on top of the very long blockade this year.
Do you want to have another try when you aren't in such a bad frame of mind?
Who would ever want to work in an area so utterly hostile to ideas that didn't originate from within it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I really don't subscribe to that at all. Lots of people will not fly for various reasons. As discussed here at length it is the changes and the use of replacement buses that actually puts passengers off using trains.
Same here. Trains are the only form of transport that doesn’t make me travel sick & has been since a child. Good job really since I’ve worked on them for 37 years lol
You are better at finding problems than identifying solutions.
Passengers don't want to go on buses and why should they to maintain a service at Faygate and Amberley?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I can see you don't to find a solution, so you are dining out finding problems instead.
If you supported the idea of thousands of customers using trains rather than buses (one diversion per hour today) then you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea of a plan that doesn't treat the entirety of the existing timetable as completely immovable.
But this is utter nonsense. The plan doesn't treat the entirety of the existing timetable as immovable. And I've explained why certain services you should be weary about moving. Thameslink is another.
And us we have all explained why your solutions don't work. We are not just coming up with problems for the sake of
it.
Considering there is no Saturday service at Faygate I'm not sure what you are on about.
Plus the Arun Valley Line between Horsham and Arundel Junction has plenty of spare capacity.
The reason why such a service wouldn't work is Arundel Junction itself, the West Coastway and the line between Three Bridges and Horsham as it's got quite a poor headway. Capacity at Three bridges would be an issue and any service that ran without any extra time would perform abysmallly.
I'll give you marks for being informative but not for finding any solutions. Start with the premise passengers don't want to use buses, even if operators do.
Then define what is a minimum viable service to remove the need for direct buses. I have tossed 4tph out there to start you off. Then define some options or a package of required compromises to deliver it and weigh against the problem.
Of course if you think buses for thousands a day between Three Bridges and Brighton are fine, there might be no compromises you think would improve the current situation.
Equally just don't close the whole line south of Three Bridges something like 16 days in one year.
If some here were running the consultation it would say, plan the alternative train service or possession calendar for us, or we just carry on as before, continuing to take 10% more possessions each year as standards for safety increase.
Something that I would like to know is how many instances are there where diversionary routes could be used, where they currently aren't, and would provide a meaningful service to passengers.
From my experience, diversions routes are ran where they make sense to. Other times, if buses are on, TOCs use the excuse to run less trains to save on costs and faff. This is my experience though. I can only thing of 1 instance where a diverted train would make any half decent impact to passengers.
I know people keep saying Settle and Carlisle but are there any others which aren't used? All of them I seem to find are used as much as possible.
There are plenty of examples. Another this weekend is Derby to Burton. XC are running trains from Burton to Cardiff and buses from Derby to Birmingham in 80mins. Particularly nasty as that is often the middle of a long journey and involves doing an interchange at Mew Street.
Both days the line appears to be open Derby - Leicester - Birmingham and with the interchange times a train should be able to beat the bus on journey time.
But for all of the much rehearsed reasons, they aren't.
No constructive engagement at all. I can't find above anything above that is either constructive or informative. ... Do you want to have another try when you aren't in such a bad frame of mind?
Who would ever want to work in an area so utterly hostile to ideas that didn't originate from within it?
I'll give you marks for being informative but not for finding any solutions. Start with the premise passengers don't want to use buses, even if operators do.
Then define what is a minimum viable service to remove the need for direct buses. I have tossed 4tph out there to start you off. Then define some options or a package of required compromises to deliver it and weigh against the problem.
Of course if you think buses for thousands a day between Three Bridges and Brighton are fine, there might be no compromises you think would improve the current situation.
Equally just don't close the whole line south of Three Bridges something like 16 days in one year.
If some here were running the consultation it would say, plan the alternative train service or possession calendar for us, or we just carry on as before, continuing to take 10% more possessions each year as standards for safety increase.
You see, I reckon I could just about squeeze in an extra 2tph theoretically, and its just about physically possible to platform them at Brighton, but that would require the entire timetable lining up which it won't and if you wanted quick journey times would destroy and ruin the service on the West Coastway. So in practice, actually timetabling them would be impossible.
It just wouldn't be possible to squeeze in an extra two trains an hour, as well as getting the rest of the timetable to not be a complete and utter mess.
I unlike other people on this forum, don't like saying things timetabling wise are impossible. But what you are proposing, is in my view genuinely impossible.
No constructive engagement at all. I can't find above anything above that is either constructive or informative. I do note you haven't made any comment about the options for diverting when the line is closed south of Burgess Hill vs north of it. By your own yardstick it ought to require very few weekend possessions, yet gets rather a lot, on top of the very long blockade this year.
Do you want to have another try when you aren't in such a bad frame of mind?
Who would ever want to work in an area so utterly hostile to ideas that didn't originate from within it?
Engineering works, and the alternative arrangements for passengers, are planned 6-24 months in advance. This is done by professionals for whom it is their job. The people who plan the work are challenged by those who have to plan the amended train service, constantly, to reduce disruption. The people who plan the amended train service are challenged by the customer service / retail guys to minimise the effects on passengers. Some of the more significant disruption ends up on ministers desks for approval (although that is not something anybody wants!)
It is fair to say that those involved work very hard to deliver a sensible compromise. You might not accept that, and I assume you don’t actually work in that part of the rail industry, so don’t understand what goes on. However if you think those involved are doing a bad job, then can you let us all know what you do for a career so we can pick it apart?
You keeping suggesting that I (and others) are putting up problems rather than solutions, and not willing to listen to new ideas. This, frankly, is rubbish. All through the process new ideas and proposals come in. They are considered, and many are simply not practical.
So before you say, yet again, that I / we are not proposing solutions, I want you to consider that, actually, what is delivered is in most cases the best solution. If you disagree, fine, but then you need to explain what is a better solution for relaying Copyhold Junction, or, say, the west end of Woking, or Remodelling Bristol East.
You see, I reckon I could just about squeeze in an extra 2tph theoretically, and its just about physically possible to platform them at Brighton, but that would require the entire timetable lining up which it won't and if you wanted quick journey times would destroy and ruin the service on the West Coastway. So in practice, actually timetabling them would be impossible.
It just wouldn't be possible to squeeze in an extra two trains an hour, as well as getting the rest of the timetable to not be a complete and utter mess.
I unlike other people on this forum, don't like saying things timetabling wise are impossible. But what you are proposing, is in my view genuinely impossible.
I have set you a challenge not a proposal. You don't seem to have a view even on the first question (what is the minimum viable service) without answering that question you cannot answer the others.
Clearly the 1tph on Sunday overtaken by a bus service isn't intended to cover the Brighton - London market, so the minimum viable alternative is somewhere above that level.
I have set you a challenge not a proposal. You don't seem to have a view even on the first question (what is the minimum viable service) without answering that question you cannot answer the others.
Clearly the 1tph on Sunday overtaken by a bus service isn't intended to cover the Brighton - London market, so the minimum viable alternative is somewhere above that level.
Its not my job to define the minimum viable service too replaces buses.
But just to answer your question, I would say 2tph via Horsham, as is what runs in the timetable on Saturday.
But I think the current situation is the best, people get to chose between taking the train, which is longer or the bus which is quicker.
And I was out on the Bri'tghton Main Line Yesterday and while the trains via Horsham were busy, they certainly weren't full and standing which indicates that the setup that was going on on Saturday worked very well.
Engineering works, and the alternative arrangements for passengers, are planned 6-24 months in advance. This is done by professionals for whom it is their job. The people who plan the work are challenged by those who have to plan the amended train service, constantly, to reduce disruption. The people who plan the amended train service are challenged by the customer service / retail guys to minimise the effects on passengers. Some of the more significant disruption ends up on ministers desks for approval (although that is not something anybody wants!)
It is fair to say that those involved work very hard to deliver a sensible compromise. You might not accept that, and I assume you don’t actually work in that part of the rail industry, so don’t understand what goes on. However if you think those involved are doing a bad job, then can you let us all know what you do for a career so we can pick it apart?
You keeping suggesting that I (and others) are putting up problems rather than solutions, and not willing to listen to new ideas. This, frankly, is rubbish. All through the process new ideas and proposals come in. They are considered, and many are simply not practical.
So before you say, yet again, that I / we are not proposing solutions, I want you to consider that, actually, what is delivered is in most cases the best solution. If you disagree, fine, but then you need to explain what is a better solution for relaying Copyhold Junction, or, say, the west end of Woking, or Remodelling Bristol East.
Perhaps I will try and respond in a different way.
This forthcoming consultation isn't a consultation it is a vacillation. We heard earlier from a poster involved in booking passenger travel who said passengers prefer trains and many reject coaches outright.
This is very well known already and proven by earlier consultations, including Transport Focus in 2013 and 2018. These found that 55% would not travel by rail if there was a replacement bus or coach involved and 75% would use a diverted train over replacement coach, if the total journey was 30mins longer.
All of this is widely known and understood except it seems by 'insiders' and train companies who continue to think that providing a bus replacement is an acceptable alternative, especially if it is slightly quicker than a diverted train, to the point of saying it isn't worth extending London to Edinburgh to Glasgow during work on the West Coast, because it will be too slow, passengers won't travel and a bus up the M6 from Preston to Carlisle would somehow be better.
We don't need another consultation to relearn these basic facts, but quite a few insiders need to get into listening mode.
There are plenty of challenges when it comes to track capacity, possessions train crew etc... I do get that. But the biggest at the moment seems to people be in the rail industry understanding the need for change.
On the possessions you have yet to convince me. As an outsider I can see let's say 12 different large possessions on one Sunday in SE England requiring bus replacement, next Sunday it will be a similar number and the next.
I see very long possessions which if shorter could be far less disruptive e.g. Three Bridges / Burgess Hill to Brighton. I also see the same places being closed weekend after weekend, after weekend.
I remain unconvinced this can possibly be an optimal use of resources, that it is minimising disruption to passengers, or that doing work in this way means you getting high productivity at all of those sites and therefore minimising the number of these possessions.
Unfortunately if you are of the view there is a bus from Three Bridges to Brighton and all in it is perhaps 40mins slower than normal, the conclusion is that there isn't a massive problem needing to be solved.
But if you go back to the findings of earlier consultations on this subject this is far from correct. The suggested increase in types of engineering work needing trains to be stopped, only makes change across all of these topics more pressing.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Its not my job to define the minimum viable service too replaces buses.
But just to answer your question, I would say 2tph via Horsham, as is what runs in the timetable on Saturday.
But I think the current situation is the best, people get to chose between taking the train, which is longer or the bus which is quicker.
And I was out on the Bri'tghton Main Line Yesterday and while the trains via Horsham were busy, they certainly weren't full and standing which indicates that the setup that was going on on Saturday worked very well.
But if you are going to try and rubbish the idea of having more and faster diversions, that is where you need to start.
As I have already explained the reasons the trains weren't full is because Brighton customers were sent onto non-stop buses.
As for 'the current situation is best' I hadn't read that before my remarks on the earlier consultations on this subject, but this does support my point perfectly.
Perhaps I will try and respond in a different way.
This forthcoming consultation isn't a consultation it is a vacillation. We heard earlier from a poster involved in booking passenger travel who said passengers prefer trains and many reject coaches outright.
This is very well known already and proven by earlier consultations, including Transport Focus in 2013 and 2018. These found that 55% would not travel by rail if there was a replacement bus or coach involved and 75% would use a diverted train over replacement coach, if the total journey was 30mins longer.
All of this is widely known and understood except it seems by 'insiders' and train companies who continue to think that providing a bus replacement is an acceptable alternative, especially if it is slightly quicker than a diverted train, to the point of saying it isn't worth extending London to Edinburgh to Glasgow during work on the West Coast, because it will be too slow, passengers won't travel and a bus up the M6 from Preston to Carlisle would somehow be better.
We don't need another consultation to relearn these basic facts, but quite a few insiders need to get into listening mode.
There are plenty of challenges when it comes to track capacity, possessions train crew etc... I do get that. But the biggest at the moment seems to people be in the rail industry understanding the need for change.
On the possessions you have yet to convince me. As an outsider I can see let's say 12 different large possessions on one Sunday in SE England requiring bus replacement, next Sunday it will be a similar number and the next.
I see very long possessions which if shorter could be far less disruptive e.g. Three Bridges / Burgess Hill to Brighton. I also see the same places being closed weekend after weekend, after weekend.
I remain unconvinced this can possibly be an optimal use of resources, that it is minimising disruption to passengers, or that doing work in this way means you getting high productivity at all of those sites and therefore minimising the number of these possessions.
Unfortunately if you are of the view there is a bus from Three Bridges to Brighton and all in it is perhaps 40mins slower than normal, the conclusion is that there isn't a massive problem needing to be solved.
But if you go back to the findings of earlier consultations on this subject this is far from correct. The suggested increase in types of engineering work needing trains to be stopped, only makes change across all of these topics more pressing.
If true this will be a welcomed move by all. It's blown my mind in recent years at how quickly TOCs are happy to turn to buses. Diversionary routes are just something you don't see today. Remember under BR when the train ran no matter what!
By contrast freight gets diverted almost nightly and it just carries on. You don't see lorries taking over part of the journey to substitute diversionary workings.
Not at all, I just knew you would bite on it and carry on saying everything is wrong and dismissing anything and everything countered. Its your general modus operandi.
I sense that you are unhappy because people who deal with the complication of these situations keep trying to explain how the realities are, rather than accepting pre-formed conclusions
There are plenty of examples. Another this weekend is Derby to Burton. XC are running trains from Burton to Cardiff and buses from Derby to Birmingham in 80mins. Particularly nasty as that is often the middle of a long journey and involves doing an interchange at Mew Street.
Both days the line appears to be open Derby - Leicester - Birmingham and with the interchange times a train should be able to beat the bus on journey time.
But for all of the much rehearsed reasons, they aren't.
Okay then... are there paths to maintain the Derby - Birmingham frequency by diverting them via Leicester?
How many additional DMUs would XC require to divert trains this longer route?
How many additional members of staff would XC require to divert trains this longer route?
How many XC staff sign this route? And, if you need more then how many existing XC services a week should be diverted via Leicester to ensure that staff retain route knowledge? (meaning a slower journey time for passengers but also potentially removing some services from Burton/ Tamworth etc)
Given that there are fixed paths from Yorkshire/Nottingham to Derby and from Birmingham towards Cardiff/ Bristol/ Reading etc, would there be space at New Street for the services to wait for their next path? (e.g. I've been on XC services diverted via Erewash where the diversion wasn't *that* long, but it was enough to mean that we'd missed the slot towards Birmingham, so had to sit at Derby for best part of twenty five minutes - Derby had that capacity but would New Street?
I get that "passengers prefer direct trains" and "passengers would prefer a train to a bus", but people don't seem to want to address the practicalities of the problem, just come up with their pre-formed "solutions" and then complain that other people won't bend reality accordingly
We heard earlier from a poster involved in booking passenger travel who said passengers prefer trains and many reject coaches outright.
This is very well known already and proven by earlier consultations, including Transport Focus in 2013 and 2018. These found that 55% would not travel by rail if there was a replacement bus or coach involved and 75% would use a diverted train over replacement coach, if the total journey was 30mins longer.
All of this is widely known and understood except it seems by 'insiders' and train companies who continue to think that providing a bus replacement is an acceptable alternative, especially if it is slightly quicker than a diverted train, to the point of saying it isn't worth extending London to Edinburgh to Glasgow during work on the West Coast, because it will be too slow, passengers won't travel and a bus up the M6 from Preston to Carlisle would somehow be better.
We don't need another consultation to relearn these basic facts, but quite a few insiders need to get into listening mode
I think we know that, all things being equal, people prefer trains to buses
People on here are trying to explain that there are costs to trying to always ensure that diversions can happen and that sometimes it's worthwhile but not always - I'd always prefer a direct train but there are opportunity costs to that - I've also been on a few late evening trains when I just wanted to get home as soon as possible but had to deal with my service taking ten/twenty minutes longer to ensure that the driver got to tick a box saying that they had kept their route knowledge refreshed for the next six months or whatever - it's really not as black and white as you seem to want to make it out to be
As an outsider I can see let's say 12 different large possessions on one Sunday in SE England requiring bus replacement, next Sunday it will be a similar number and the next.
So you are presumably not a possession or train planner, and indeed do not work in any part of the railway industry, yet know far better than the insiders, both the railway professionals who have posted on here, and those who actually do the jobs mentioned, how things should be done ?
Except when you do; Avanti and freight operators have diverted via the Dumfries/Kilmarnock route when the WCML is closed, for planned work, and Virgin, Caledonian Sleepers and Freight Operators did during the 3 month Lamington Viaduct closure in 2016. And, also in 2016, Network Rail constructed a new connection at Anniesland so that services could divert to and from Glasgow Queen Street Low Level during the planned closure of the High Level station.
A few posts ago I said I would take two 9 day blockades of Three Bridges every 30 years and Christmas week and one weekend a year. The bit south of Burgess Hill looks easier to divert past.
What we get is about 15 days a year of the entirety of Three Bridges to Brighton being closed, each weekend being concurrent with a dozen or so other major possessions at the same time.
You don't have the resources to fill 30 route miles of line closure with meaningful work once, let alone all of the other possessions.
A few posts ago I said I would take two 9 day blockades of Three Bridges every 30 years and Christmas week and one weekend a year. The bit south of Burgess Hill looks easier to divert past.
What we get is about 15 days a year of the entirety of Three Bridges to Brighton being closed, each weekend being concurrent with a dozen or so other major possessions at the same time.
One point that these arguments might support is that the opportunity should be taken to stop investing in the Brighton line in the light of lower passenger numbers and the service be cut back to a much lower level that is consistent with the capability of the railway.
If a bare minimum approach were to be taken to maintenance and renewals from now onwards, would there be a resultant cost saving? Could Brighton's service be cut back to what it actually needs, that is perhaps two Thameslink 12-car 700s an hour for much of the day?
Such a move would remove the need for weekend closures and the buses.
I sense that you are unhappy because people who deal with the complication of these situations keep trying to explain how the realities are, rather than accepting pre-formed conclusions
Okay then... are there paths to maintain the Derby - Birmingham frequency by diverting them via Leicester?
How many additional DMUs would XC require to divert trains this longer route?
How many additional members of staff would XC require to divert trains this longer route?
How many XC staff sign this route? And, if you need more then how many existing XC services a week should be diverted via Leicester to ensure that staff retain route knowledge? (meaning a slower journey time for passengers but also potentially removing some services from Burton/ Tamworth etc)
Given that there are fixed paths from Yorkshire/Nottingham to Derby and from Birmingham towards Cardiff/ Bristol/ Reading etc, would there be space at New Street for the services to wait for their next path? (e.g. I've been on XC services diverted via Erewash where the diversion wasn't *that* long, but it was enough to mean that we'd missed the slot towards Birmingham, so had to sit at Derby for best part of twenty five minutes - Derby had that capacity but would New Street?
I get that "passengers prefer direct trains" and "passengers would prefer a train to a bus", but people don't seem to want to address the practicalities of the problem, just come up with their pre-formed "solutions" and then complain that other people won't bend reality accordingly
I think we know that, all things being equal, people prefer trains to buses
People on here are trying to explain that there are costs to trying to always ensure that diversions can happen and that sometimes it's worthwhile but not always - I'd always prefer a direct train but there are opportunity costs to that - I've also been on a few late evening trains when I just wanted to get home as soon as possible but had to deal with my service taking ten/twenty minutes longer to ensure that the driver got to tick a box saying that they had kept their route knowledge refreshed for the next six months or whatever - it's really not as black and white as you seem to want to make it out to be
An epic thread of whataboutery, with no solutions.
I am pretty sure XC have done that diversion before. They have half hourly paths at either end and already operate a much reduced service since COVID. The reason crew route knowledge is such an obstacle has also been covered at length.
Without addressing points in minute details it looks like you are 'putting up flak' rather than offering anything worth engaging with.
If you are an 'insider' do consider yourself to be in scope of my identification of the primary problem as an unwillingness by some in the industry to recognise there is actually is problem that they need to address. None of the other challenges will ever get addressed until that happens.
We don't need another consultation to confirm that.
A few posts ago I said I would take two 9 day blockades of Three Bridges every 30 years and Christmas week and one weekend a year. The bit south of Burgess Hill looks easier to divert past.
Diversions via Lewes are run regularly for both planned and unplanned work, but they do require a reversal at Lewes which restricts capacity for trains to/from Seaford and Eastbourne. It also means you can't run a full service because of lower headway, longer journey times and different junction access at Brighton. If the number of people travelling is expected to be above the capacity available to be provided then a bus would be required from Haywards Heath to Brighton (Burgess Hill station isn't a suitable train/bus interchange point for this sort of thing), in addition to the buses already required to Burgess Hill, Hassocks and Preston Park.
One point that these arguments might support is that the opportunity should be taken to stop investing in the Brighton line in the light of lower passenger numbers and the service be cut back to a much lower level that is consistent with the capability of the railway.
If a bare minimum approach were to be taken to maintenance and renewals from now onwards, would there be a resultant cost saving? Could Brighton's service be cut back to what it actually needs, that is perhaps two Thameslink 12-car 700s an hour for much of the day?
Such a move would remove the need for weekend closures and the buses.
There may well be a point about Soviet style production targets for why Network Rail are mandated to renew xx 5 chain lengths of earths works in their annual delivery plans. There are also many instances where too many trains are being operated.
The piecemeal nature of works past e.g. 1,000 yards of plain line renewal per weekend also risks condemning them to the same piecemeal approach to renewal of the same going forward, unless someone decides to think strategically.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Diversions via Lewes are run regularly for both planned and unplanned work, but they do require a reversal at Lewes which restricts capacity for trains to/from Seaford and Eastbourne. It also means you can't run a full service because of lower headway, longer journey times and different junction access at Brighton. If the number of people travelling is expected to be above the capacity available to be provided then a bus would be required from Haywards Heath to Brighton (Burgess Hill station isn't a suitable train/bus interchange point for this sort of thing), in addition to the buses already required to Burgess Hill, Hassocks and Preston Park.
It sounds to me like a minimum occupation blockade approach is better for north of Burgess Hill while via Lewes is less difficult to provide a viable train service without resorting to buses for through passengers.
Still too much readiness to reach for those buses as soon as challenges are encountered with the timetable. See previous consultations for more details.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not at all, I just knew you would bite on it and carry on saying everything is wrong and dismissing anything and everything countered. Its your general modus operandi.
The biggest problem is the attitude of experienced people who in other organisations would usually recognise weaknesses in their offer and be full of positive ideas on how to improve their product.
Is it genuinely depressing that doesn't come across here, far from it.
If you genuinely are so perfect that between you, you can offer no solutions or improvements then I should either take off my hat or remind you that almost no large organisation can make that claim with any honesty.
It is pretty rare to go into an organisation and find experienced people who can't or won't offer any opportunities for improvement and many of the culture related reasons for the latter don't apply here.
Still too much readiness to reach for those buses as soon as challenges are encountered with the timetable. See previous consultations for more details.
If you're going to go out and wave pitchforks claiming timetable planners throw in the towel at the first opportunity, please consider who you might be talking to. There are many, many people in the industry who work their socks off to keep trains in the plan whilst engineering works happen.
