What would you sacrifice?

[Purple Orange]

The circle line from King’s Cross to Westminster?! Madness.

Generally though I can’t get on board with there being a direct service to/from every major city to every corner of the country. Sometimes a change of train results in a better service. In 15 years time, if I am heading to Reading from Manchester, I’ll be catching one of 3 tph HS2 services to Old Oak Common then change on to Crossrail or a GWML service, rather than wait at Piccadilly for an hourly direct train that takes 3 hours.

 

[HST43257]

I’ll come back to this one that’s already been talked about elsewhere.

4tph fast over the TPE Route. Simplified, proper clockface timetabling. 2 only calling at Huddersfield and 2 calling at Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Stalybridge. The 2 that stop at more places go to Man Airport and the 2 that stop at Huddersfield to to Liverpool.

So you’d end up with:
1tph Edinburgh to Liverpool
1tph Saltburn to Man Airport
1tph Scarborough to Liverpool
1tph Hull to Man Airport

XC could cover the 4th tph York to Leeds. Let’s not have the 2tph Newcastle vs 1tph Scarborough situation again here.

 

[Aictos]

The XC Birmingham-Stansted service being cut back to Birmingham-Cambridge only (except for early/late services as at present).

Liverpool-Norwich split at Nottingham.

Why cut back the Birmingham to Stansted service? Also why split the Norwich to Liverpool service?

 

[Purple Orange]

But what is wrong with 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers on TPE as will be delivered after TPRU?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what is wrong with 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers on TPE as will be delivered after TPRU?

It's excessive and will cause unpunctuality. 4tph of North TPE, one for each main destination, is the way to go, and the stoppers should be with Northern.

 

[HST43257]

But what is wrong with 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers on TPE as will be delivered after TPRU?

It's excessive and will cause unpunctuality. 4tph of North TPE, one for each main destination, is the way to go, and the stoppers should be with Northern.

I was mainly thinking pre TRU. But, once TRU has happened, I’d keep it at 2 fast 2 semi fast until it’s actually needed.

 

[Purple Orange]

I was mainly thinking pre TRU. But, once TRU has happened, I’d keep it at 2 fast 2 semi fast until it’s actually needed.

The crowded trains suggests it is needed.

 

[YorksLad12]

The circle line from King’s Cross to Westminster?! Madness.

Sub-surface line, so quickest to get to and from at either end!

 

[HST43257]

The crowded trains suggests it is needed.

Currently crowded?

There are new 5 car fleets operating which are nearly double the single 185 capacity. You’d need 6tph 3 car but 4tph 5 car (especially coming out of covid) could even be way too much!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The crowded trains suggests it is needed.

The trains are (still) too short.

When they're 200m long, come back and ask again about frequency.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting idea for a thread.

The danger is that people's idea of "cutbacks" involve either massive infrastructure investment or brand new trains or "cutting the number of trains overall but stopping more at my station", which isn't really much sacrifice for their station.

Living in Sheffield, my view is that the easiest cuts to make round here would be (in order):

1. Turn the "semi-fast" London - Sheffield service into just a London - Derby service, certainly off-peak. There'd still be three trains per hour from Derby to Sheffield (two XC, one EMR), but the time penalty for the "semi-fast" mean that it's not as popular for Sheffield passengers - and it doesn't serve anywhere unique north of Derby (e.g. I think you'd need to keep it running south of Derby since it does serve some places that the "fast" doesn't)

2. Cut the XC services back a bit north of York - there are plenty of LNER/TPE services to connect to for longer distance passengers - I don't think that we need two XC services per hour north of York and one XC service per hour north of Newcastle - some thinning out could be done without much damage - e.g. maybe, given the twenty minute time penalty for going via Leeds, you could try to run common hourly path north of York?

3. Cut the Retford frequency so that the service goes back to what it was for many years - one train per hour from Sheffield to Lincoln that makes all stops

4. Cut the Doncaster frequency from five/hour to four/hour. Probably by merging the Sheffield - Doncaster stopper with either the Hull or Cleethorpes services (i.e. Hull services pick up stops at Rotherham, Swinton, Mexborough and Conisbrough)

5. Cut the one of the Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds "semi-fast" services per hour - the one that is overtaken by the XC service anyway (so would be little use for Sheffield - Leeds passengers)

(this is assuming that the Manchester Airport bit of the TPE service is chopped - that's something that I'd be okay with too)

Those are all cuts for my local station (on services that I have used myself in recent years) that would leave Sheffield no worse off than things were twenty years ago but would allow some thinning out/ improve reliability/ permit more doubling up of certain services - I'm not just trying to suggest cuts to other people's lines - some of these cuts would inconvenience me and people I know but I think they seem okay (if we go with the proviso that everyone needs to shoulder some of the burdens). There are other changes I could suggest but they involve some kind of spending (e.g. new platforms/ turn back sidings etc) so I've not suggested them to try to keep with the ethos of this thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's definitely an interesting idea.

My local station is Abbey Wood which, pre-pandemic, saw a generous 8tph each way, but with varying stopping patterns which meant the smaller stations on the line (Belvedere, Erith, Woolwich Dockyard) tended to see quite irregular services. Post-pandemic and post-Crossrail, I doubt there will be the crowds to fill 8tph this far out from central London. So I think I'd accept a reduction to 6tph if it was done on a regular 10-minute frequency with all trains stopping at all stations via Greenwich - so everywhere gets a decent service. I think that would be more in the greater good of the railway as a whole.

That leaves the question of the via Lewisham trains, which provide quite a useful link - albeit one that you can a bit less conveniently do via Greenwich and the DLR. I'd be tempted to curtail them so they just run London-Plumstead (which I think used to be done a long time ago, though I may have mis-remembered?) That frees up a few trainsets and maybe takes some pressure off the flat junctions between Slade Green and Dartford. Or consider losing those trains altogether IF there is somewhere else that could make better use of the freed up capacity into London (the Hayes line, perhaps?)

Also, although I personally find the Abbey Wood - Sidcup/Bexleyheath rounders quite useful, I suspect the greater good would be served if all trains just went to Dartford so you had decent connections there. However, I'm loathe to suggest that in this thread as I'm not sure if there's enough capacity at Dartford without infrastructure improvements?

 

[HST43257]

1. Turn the "semi-fast" London - Sheffield service into just a London - Derby service, certainly off-peak. There'd still be three trains per hour from Derby to Sheffield (two XC, one EMR), but the time penalty for the "semi-fast" mean that it's not as popular for Sheffield passengers - and it doesn't serve anywhere unique north of Derby (e.g. I think you'd need to keep it running south of Derby since it does serve some places that the "fast" doesn't)

Could send it to Matlock? Just need a passing loop and a space beyond the station for stabling (if there isn’t one already).

2. Cut the XC services back a bit north of York - there are plenty of LNER/TPE services to connect to for longer distance passengers - I don't think that we need two XC services per hour north of York and one XC service per hour north of Newcastle - some thinning out could be done without much damage - e.g. maybe, given the twenty minute time penalty for going via Leeds, you could try to run common hourly path north of York?

Agreed. Keep the Edinburgh but terminate the other at York (extending to Scarborough in summer)

3. Cut the Retford frequency so that the service goes back to what it was for many years - one train per hour from Sheffield to Lincoln that makes all stops.

Only if ideas of frequent Brigg line services go away.

4. Cut the Doncaster frequency from five/hour to four/hour. Probably by merging the Sheffield - Doncaster stopper with either the Hull or Cleethorpes services (i.e. Hull services pick up stops at Rotherham, Swinton, Mexborough and Conisbrough)

Add a Meadowhall stop to the XC, and make the Sheffield to Hull/Scarborough service call at more places.

5. Cut the one of the Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds "semi-fast" services per hour - the one that is overtaken by the XC service anyway (so would be little use for Sheffield - Leeds passengers)

Barnsley should have an express service. What you could have is 1tph calling everywhere Leeds to Barnsley then fast to Sheffield, with 1tph going fast Leeds to Barnsley (WKK only) then all stations to SHF. Penistone would provide the 2nd slow there as normal.

It's definitely an interesting idea.

My local station is Abbey Wood which, pre-pandemic, saw a generous 8tph each way, but with varying stopping patterns which meant the smaller stations on the line (Belvedere, Erith, Woolwich Dockyard) tended to see quite irregular services. Post-pandemic and post-Crossrail, I doubt there will be the crowds to fill 8tph this far out from central London. So I think I'd accept a reduction to 6tph if it was done on a regular 10-minute frequency with all trains stopping at all stations via Greenwich - so everywhere gets a decent service. I think that would be more in the greater good of the railway as a whole.

That leaves the question of the via Lewisham trains, which provide quite a useful link - albeit one that you can a bit less conveniently do via Greenwich and the DLR. I'd be tempted to curtail them so they just run London-Plumstead (which I think used to be done a long time ago, though I may have mis-remembered?) That frees up a few trainsets and maybe takes some pressure off the flat junctions between Slade Green and Dartford. Or consider losing those trains altogether IF there is somewhere else that could make better use of the freed up capacity into London (the Hayes line, perhaps?)

Also, although I personally find the Abbey Wood - Sidcup/Bexleyheath rounders quite useful, I suspect the greater good would be served if all trains just went to Dartford so you had decent connections there. However, I'm loathe to suggest that in this thread as I'm not sure if there's enough capacity at Dartford without infrastructure improvements?

How long could you make the trains on that route?

Could you run 2tph via Lewisham and 4tph via Greenwich in the long term, with longer trains (if possible).

Those 4 would be Cannon Street Circulars, 2 of which would be via Bexleyheath and 2 via Sidcup. The 2 via Lewisham would be Dartfords.

The Bexleyheath and Sidcup routes could have similar systems, with 2 round each loop and 2 to Dartford (and beyond). So 6tph in total.


Beware I may be being a bit naive and/or ignorant given my lack of knowledge about the area.

 

[Purple Orange]

Currently crowded?

There are new 5 car fleets operating which are nearly double the single 185 capacity. You’d need 6tph 3 car but 4tph 5 car (especially coming out of covid) could even be way too much!

The trains are (still) too short.

When they're 200m long, come back and ask again about frequency.

I’ll concede that the trains are too short. However I don’t think it will be too long until we are back at a level where demand with the current fleet needs more than 4 fast tph. From that point onwards, incremental lengthening of trains will be based on the need to service 4 fast + 2 semi-fast.

200m trains may be what it gets to in 2030, but while the fleet exists to service 6 tph, why not provide that service? What should happen in the short term is send the Hull & Huddersfield TPE services to Victoria and have the Newcastle & Middlesbrough services terminate at Piccadilly. Therefore we have 6-car 185s with doors at thirds going to the airport and better serviced for going around the chord and making stops along the Styal line.

 

[HST43257]

I’ll concede that the trains are too short. However I don’t think it will be too long until we are back at a level where demand with the current fleet needs more than 4 fast tph. From that point onwards, incremental lengthening of trains will be based on the need to service 4 fast + 2 semi-fast.

200m trains may be what it gets to in 2030, but while the fleet exists to service 6 tph, why not provide that service? What should happen in the short term is send the Hull & Huddersfield TPE services to Victoria and have the Newcastle & Middlesbrough services terminate at Piccadilly. Therefore we have 6-car 185s with doors at thirds going to the airport and better serviced for going around the chord and making stops along the Styal line.

I’d say double the Huddersfield frequency and send them both into Pic. 2tph fast can go to Stockport as a potential alternative to Ordsall. Once HS2 and NPR finally happen, 1 Stockport service would take the path of the XC one from Stockport to Bristol. The other would be cut, but replaced by an extended HS2 Macclesfield service. Double track and electrify Denton route. It’s gone a bit off topic here as I’m proposing upgrades but I’m interested to hear opinions.

 

[6Gman]

In my opinion, 2tph on that line is justified, but not necessarily all day.
The problem with only 1tph is that Handforth and Alderley Edge would have an hourly service only, and that is probably enough to push commuters into their cars.

Therefore, I would retain Alderley Edge stoppers at least between around 7:30 and 10:30, and between around 15:30 and 18:30.

In which case, why not run them all day? The saving in sticking them in a siding (where?) for 4 hours in the middle of the day saves pretty much the square root of zero.

 

[HST43257]

In which case, why not run them all day? The saving in sticking them in a siding (where?) for 4 hours in the middle of the day saves pretty much the square root of zero.

Off peak reliability when youre carrying air

 

[Purple Orange]

Off peak reliability when youre carrying air

The funny thing is that when you increase frequency, patronage increases too. Just look at the Altrincham & Bury lines as prime examples, for which the Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth & Cheadle Hulme market shares very similar characteristics.

 

[tbtc]

Could send it to Matlock? Just need a passing loop and a space beyond the station for stabling (if there isn’t one already).

I'd be fine with the (truncated) London - Derby service going somewhere else instead of Sheffield, I thought I'd better just stick to cuts at Sheffield (for the purposes of the thread), that's all

Agreed. Keep the Edinburgh but terminate the other at York (extending to Scarborough in summer)

Would be fine by me

Only if ideas of frequent Brigg line services go away.

I hope they do (go away) - it'd be a real waste of stock

Add a Meadowhall stop to the XC, and make the Sheffield to Hull/Scarborough service call at more places.

Good in theory but I don't think Meadowhall could accommodate doubled up XC services - and whilst these are currently in the minority (of XC services), I think it'd be too messy to have trains stopping there that were too long (could be wrong re platform lengths!)

Barnsley should have an express service. What you could have is 1tph calling everywhere Leeds to Barnsley then fast to Sheffield, with 1tph going fast Leeds to Barnsley (WKK only) then all stations to SHF. Penistone would provide the 2nd slow there as normal

I was thinking of the Sheffield - Barnsley service being

1x Huddersfield
1x Leeds stopper via Castleford
1x Leeds semi-fast (i.e. cutting one of the two current semi-fast services)

Maybe one option could be to merge one of the semi-fast services with the stopper, so that you'd ahve

1x Huddersfield
1x all stops Sheffield - Barnsley - non stop to Wakefield then Normanton and then non stop to Leeds (with a replacement DMU doing the Castleford - Woolesford - Leeds service)
1x Leeds semi-fast but with an additional stop at Darton

... that way Barnsley retains two fast-ish services to Leeds (just with one of them picking up a Darton stop and one picking up a Normanton stop - meaning a faster Leeds journey for people from both Darton and Normanton) - Castleford already has an hourly Wakefield service (the Huddersfield train) - the only "significant' loser would be the fact that Barnsley's "fast" Meadowhall/Sheffield services are cut in half (one fewer train per hour from Sheffield to Meadowhall won't matter much, especially given how badly spaced apart they are) - worth repeating that one of the two Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds "semi fast" services is overtaken by the XC anyway

(I'm referring to the services run by Northern's 158s as "semi-fast" in terms of Sheffield to Leeds but they are the "fast" services from Sheffield to Barnsley and the "fast" services from Barnsley to Leeds - hope that makes sense)

The funny thing is that when you increase frequency, patronage increases too. Just look at the Altrincham & Bury lines as prime examples, for which the Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth & Cheadle Hulme market shares very similar characteristics.

True, but it varies from line to line - doubling the frequency means doubling the costs but may not mean a doubling in passenger numbers of a doubling in revenue. Similarly, you can cut services and cut costs meaning a cut in revenue but if that cut in revenue is less than the cut in costs then the balance sheet looks better

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How long could you make the trains on that route?

10 carriages is fine - quite a few of the trains are already 10 carriages, though some are shorter. Woolwich Dockyard platforms aren't long enough for longer than 10 carriages, and there are tunnels at both ends so it's all but impossible to extend the platforms. If it wasn't for Woolwich Dockyard, you could run 12 carriage trains. However that also means you'd have to find some additional carriages from somewhere and I don't believe SouthEastern has many spares! Complicating it further are the Thameslink trains, which come in 8-carriage and 12-carriage versions only (though I'd be happy to lose those and have all trains on the line go to Cannon Street).

Could you run 2tph via Lewisham and 4tph via Greenwich in the long term, with longer trains (if possible).

I think you'd have two problems: Firstly, the stations on the Greenwich branch are pretty busy and do arguably need 6tph. Even with longer trains, 4tph means quite a long gap between trains by London standards. And secondly, if you do that, how are you going to timetable the trains? You'd have 6tph from Charlton eastwards, which ideally means a train every 10 minutes, and 4tph on the Greenwich section which ideally means a train every 15 minutes. There's no way to reconcile that without resulting in quite a few stations having very uneven service patterns - exactly the thing my suggestion was aimed at eliminating. Hence why I suggested 6tph all via Greenwich.

 

[Purple Orange]

True, but it varies from line to line - doubling the frequency means doubling the costs but may not mean a doubling in passenger numbers of a doubling in revenue. Similarly, you can cut services and cut costs meaning a cut in revenue but if that cut in revenue is less than the cut in costs then the balance sheet looks better

However by cutting you’re pushing people to use their car, increasing congestion. People need to make the journey still. Unfortunately congestion on the roads in this area is a disgrace.

 

[Greybeard33]

200m trains may be what it gets to in 2030, but while the fleet exists to service 6 tph, why not provide that service? What should happen in the short term is send the Hull & Huddersfield TPE services to Victoria and have the Newcastle & Middlesbrough services terminate at Piccadilly. Therefore we have 6-car 185s with doors at thirds going to the airport and better serviced for going around the chord and making stops along the Styal line.

No! We need to get rid of diesels under the wires, especially the highly polluting 185s, and especially from Victoria and Manchester Airport. Northern EMUs will be servicing the intermediate stops on the Styal line according to the Recovery Task Force proposals. The 185s should be confined to Hull and the Huddersfield stopper, both terminating at Piccadilly.

Not much to sacrifice on my local line (the Mid Cheshire). So long as we get back the hourly all day service, I could do without the peak extras.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Sub-surface line, so quickest to get to and from at either end!

If you're not of reduced mobility, my favoured way to get to Westminster from N London, which also works from King's Cross, was: Victoria line to Green Park, use the exit directly into Green Park, then it's a lovely walk through that park and St James's Park which comes out a block from Parliament Square.

 

[YorksLad12]

If you're not of reduced mobility, my favoured way to get to Westminster from N London, which also works from King's Cross, was: Victoria line to Green Park, use the exit directly into Green Park, then it's a lovely walk through that park and St James's Park which comes out a block from Parliament Square.

That is a blinking good idea! Must try it next time, I love a good walk. Great as the Underground Map is it doesn't/can't highlight such things.

One day I had an evening event (not for work) at the Institute of Directors which was on the same day as an afternoon ORR event (which was for work). Walked KX to ORR near Holborn, then ORR to IoD near Trafalgar Square via Covent Garden, all mostly flat. Tube back, obvs; but on another day I walked back to KX from DfT.

 

[peteb]

Kidderminster to Birmingham: Post-covid I'd sacrifice one of the 3 trains per hour for a 2 per hour off-peak service but one of those being fast, stopping only at Stourbridge Junction, taking no more than 30 minutes (i.e. back to 1958 timings!) and being a 6 car unit. Better to have fewer but faster trains than frequent slow trains in my opinion.

 

[Purple Orange]

Kidderminster to Birmingham: Post-covid I'd sacrifice one of the 3 trains per hour for a 2 per hour off-peak service but one of those being fast, stopping only at Stourbridge Junction, taking no more than 30 minutes (i.e. back to 1958 timings!) and being a 6 car unit. Better to have fewer but faster trains than frequent slow trains in my opinion.

To paraphrase another poster, that sounds like you’re asking to gain a faster train at the expense of other stations losing not just 1 tph, but 2 tph for those who get missed out by the fast. That wasn’t quite the point of my opening post.

 

[Ianno87]

True, but it varies from line to line - doubling the frequency means doubling the costs but may not mean a doubling in passenger numbers of a doubling in revenue. Similarly, you can cut services and cut costs meaning a cut in revenue but if that cut in revenue is less than the cut in costs then the balance sheet looks better

However by cutting you’re pushing people to use their car, increasing congestion. People need to make the journey still. Unfortunately congestion on the roads in this area is a disgrace.

If it's a case of keeping out units all day that would otherwise be sat in a siding during the peak, then the marginal cost of keeping them out in service all day is relatively low, which is often justified by the increased revenue that drives.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I'd sacrifice the following - meaning do without...

CrossCountry:

The once regular (for like 10 - 12 years) the services to and from Southampton / Reading - Newcastle.

The services to and from Manchester and Bristol / South West.

Just double up many of the to and from Manchester - Bournemouth trains and the Voyager services to and from Scotland / Newcastle - Bristol / South West.

Also, when 1S51 (12:27 from Plymouth) is booked to arrive at Edinburgh at around 21:10, I'd be terminating it there instead of Glasgow Central. As this used to arrive in Glasgow about 22:20, probably wait for about 25 minutes then arrive back at Craigentinny around midnight, the maintenance team have about 3 extra hours to fix the HST. Therefore, this service can be up to 3 hours late into Edinburgh!

As regards the Manchester trains, that's about an hours layover at Piccadilly.

I'd much rather this CrossCountry timetable that's proving more reliable than the frequent one with too many (some overcrowded) single Voyager trains.

Given how busy the CrossCountry Class 170's can also be, perhaps have the Cambridge terminators and starters run to and from Audley End and Stansted Airport at peak times?

 

[daodao]

I’ll come back to this one that’s already been talked about elsewhere.

4tph fast over the TPE Route. Simplified, proper clockface timetabling. 2 only calling at Huddersfield and 2 calling at Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Stalybridge. The 2 that stop at more places go to Man Airport and the 2 that stop at Huddersfield to to Liverpool.

So you’d end up with:
1tph Edinburgh to Liverpool
1tph Saltburn to Man Airport
1tph Scarborough to Liverpool
1tph Hull to Man Airport

XC could cover the 4th tph York to Leeds. Let’s not have the 2tph Newcastle vs 1tph Scarborough situation again here.

A sensible and pragmatic approach, which could easily be implemented as a tweak to option C of the current consultation.

 

[HST43257]

A sensible and pragmatic approach, which could easily be implemented as a tweak to option C of the current consultation.

Yep - the Hull to Man Airport can terminate at Victoria in the peaks if needed.