The "need" for speed?

[Oswyntail]

This was posted in another thread, and made me think.

Only if running late, they [Pendos] are timetabled at 126 max in normal service to reduce energy consumption. This margin will also allow them to regain lost time easily so we can expect all the usual 98% on time rubbish soon instead of speeding them up to provide as fast a service as possible .

What is the perfect balance between speed and punctuality? As a regularish business traveller, I would rather know that my train will arrive by a certain time than that it is running supremely fast; I felt the same when I was a regular commuter. But within reason. Punctuality could almost be guaranteed by running all schedules at 30mph, but would then lose time-critical customers. On a recent trip to Germany, I was very impressed by the metronomic punctuality of arrival and departure at every stop, and this was achieved by scheduling at less than line speed, and using the extra to catch up. It did mean that I could plan my days with confidence.
Put it another (more contentious) way - is high-speed running for the sake of it just there to satisfy the overgrown boy syndrome?

 

[WillPS]

I'd agree on stopping services, it's far more important to be realistic than optimistic. Only the highest priority InterCity services should aim to be quicker though - under privatisation on the Midland Main Line we've seen journey times go wayyy up, all because of the need to create good stats.

 

[Ticket Man]

Put it another (more contentious) way - is high-speed running for the sake of it just there to satisfy the overgrown boy syndrome?

Of course there is a need for high speed, HS1 will do much for kent and the south-east (although running HS2 up the west coast seems a bit silly to me)Think the days of "boys with their fast toys" are over somehow, there’s nothing to gain from boasting that your trains can go 140 plus because the public don’t care, they are far more focused on the cost or rail travel at the moment and will be for many years to come. This coupled with the way that network rail and the tocs treat each other over punctuality, the focus is going to be on making more robust timetables and less about how fast your choo choos can go.

 

[SquirrelJunction]

Although I agree with the sentiments that on-time is better than fast-time-but-late, the complaint still arises in some areas that journies "take 3 minutes longer than 10 years ago" in some camps across the SWT network.

Granted I know, SWT I feel did take the Michael a bit with its layover times in the "Big Change" a few years back, but look at the punctuality stats now!

 

[starrymarkb]

The SWT layovers are exactly how the "clockwork" SBB stays so punctual

And OP, that quote refered to Javelins not Pendos.

 

[Oswyntail]

Apologies - all these class numbers flying about confuse me!

 

[schmoo_smith]

Think the days of "boys with their fast toys" are over somehow, there’s nothing to gain from boasting that your trains can go 140 plus because the public don’t care, they are far more focused on the cost or rail travel at the moment and will be for many years to come. This coupled with the way that network rail and the tocs treat each other over punctuality, the focus is going to be on making more robust timetables and less about how fast your choo choos can go.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head there, the days of british rail's "speed war" with the APT and HST has long gone. But i also do think that people are getting a little more concious about the green credentials of train travel but then I dont think that most people realise that train work in the same as cars do in the respect that the faster they go the more energy they consume.

 

[thelem]

there’s nothing to gain from boasting that your trains can go 140 plus because the public don’t care, they are far more focused on the cost or rail travel at the moment

I disagree. I live in Brighton and regularly use the trains in the south east to go to destinations such as Ashford, London and Salisbury. On the rare occasions I venture north I love the fact it doesn't feel like it's that much longer. e.g. it takes almost as long to get from Brighton to Euston as from Euston to Manchester, despite the latter being 3 times the distance.

Having said that, I do think punctuality is more important than speed, especially when you have connections to make, but it can be taken too far. Where a service has a long final leg slack can more easily be built into the timetable. I'd rather have a service timetabled 5 minutes slower, with 50% of journeys arriving 5 minutes early, than a service with a faster timetable but 50% of journeys arriving 5 minutes late (i.e. no difference in actual journey times).

 

[Old Timer]

I remember in the 70s and 80s that a signal stop at 100 mph cost about 2 minutes.

With the introduction of 110 mph running that figure actually increased to around 3 to 4 mins. Similarly a 20 mph TSR cost that much more time to the 110 mph services.

At 125 a signal stop costs about 5 mins.

It is an inevitable truth that the faster you go, the more time will be lost by any out of course stop or delay.

Most UK services stop for 30 secs and a "true" Class 1 for about a minute.

If you look abroad, they have much longer station stops than we do, and so catch up.

I also notice that they seem to divert the long distance services without any of the fuss that we make. and with little notice.

Was in Amsterdam CS recently to hear the announcer stating that a long distance service to Nurenbourg was being diverted, and apologies for the inconvenience !

 

[me123]

I'd rather have the slack in. Sometimes (like Virgin's old tricks of trains arriving in GLC half an hour before they were scheduled to!) it's just barmy, but a few minutes slack makes little difference on the overall journey time and ensures minimal delays. Remember as well that, it's not just the stats that are affected; the improved stats mean that you're more likely to arrive by the time it says in the timetable and, therefore, you can plan your journey or day much better.

 

[The Planner]

The problem you have is that TOCs have contracted journey times, so as much as they would like to pad out schedules to hit PPM, or to extend station dwells, they can't do anymore than they are now really.

 

[ukrob]

Just a minor point, but OP, the person you quoted was not talking about Pendos like you imply, they were talking about 395s

 

[royaloak]

Just a minor point, but OP, the person you quoted was not talking about Pendos like you imply, they were talking about 395s

That's correct, pendos are limited to a maximum speed in service of 125mph due to the signalling, 395s can do 140mph on HS1 also due to the signalling.
the "thing" with timetables is the balance between journey time and punctuality, you can have 100% punctuality at the cost of slow journey times, or faster journey times but lose the punctuality safeguard when things go wrong.
Now Virgin reckon that 10 minutes saved is worth 5% more passengers (or something like that) so if they can speed the service up they get more passengers= more money.
Slow the service down and they lose passengers despite the service being punctually more reliable.
Now all things are relative so if you try to go too far towards speed you lose any benefit if you end up with an unreliable service (ask Virgin)
Also if you compare the density of service we run per line compared to other countries I think you will find that we are way out in front, the denser the service the more knock on effect when things go wrong.
I have used Virgin as an example with the WCML being in the news and am not saying anything about the service they run.