jamieintercity
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 707
Will this ever happen, perhaps running one train a day in both directions to and from London/Manchester airport meaning a turn around at Edinburgh and calling at haymarket twice
Whenever there's a thread about the old Cross Country links lost, people tend to mention some "cut" links (Portsmouth to Liverpool etc) but never seem to mention the Aberdeen/ Dundee services down the WCML.
I doubt it, I don't think there's even near enough demand to justify the rediagramming and training of staff or the rejigging of units and their diagrams, or any of the other seemingly infinite obstacles. SR provide good connections as it is, I can't see why you'd take TPE stock that far away from the core when it'd not only be empty but so desperately needed elsewhere. Before the 350 / 3s arrive I doubt they actually could cover it, and I doubt Virgin's stock availability either would cover it.
The comparable Motorway is the M9 / M80 / M73 / M74, the M8 is more parallel to the localised Glasgow - Edinburgh services and the Airdrie - Bathgate rail service is more closer now that it has openedFor instance, who does Dundee-Carlisle and why? Is there exceptionally high car use on the M8?
The main advantage to most flights are the lack of need to change journey, which is now almost always required in a rail journey, and that is pretty much unchanged in over 20 years
Really, this needs more research. For instance, who does Dundee-Carlisle and why?
In that case you would use one single flight journey, ie Aberdeen to Manchester, or Aberdeen to LondonHuh? How many people's final destination is the Gatley area of Manchester or the edge of Crawley?
In that case you would use one single flight journey, ie Aberdeen to Manchester, or Aberdeen to London
You would then use a different transport method before and after each airport
If someone was to suggest running a Kings Cross to Inverness service once a day (forgetting it already exists) then would people say the same? Yes I know why its run and it began back in the day when the railway was one but still its a similar thing surely?
If someone was to suggest running a Kings Cross to Inverness service once a day (forgetting it already exists) then would people say the same? Yes I know why its run and it began back in the day when the railway was one but still its a similar thing surely?
If there was money to be made from a through service then it would be done.
If someone was to suggest running a Kings Cross to Inverness service once a day (forgetting it already exists) then would people say the same? Yes I know why its run and it began back in the day when the railway was one but still its a similar thing surely?
Ah, but here is the rub! The way the railway was privatised into many separate TOCs has artificially increased costs and specifically in this case made through running trains more expensive.
Just look at the additional costs involved in rostering drivers for East Coast's "North of Edinburgh" services to Inverness & Aberdeen with the resulting lodging turns and non productive time with staff travelling passenger due to the infrequency of these services.
Under BR Edinburgh depot covered as far South as Preston & Newcastle, as far West as Glasgow, & North via Stirling, Perth, & Dundee to Aberdeen (& all points East of that axis) - regardless of the type of traction. Lots of trains ran to through destinations but the crews changed as required.
Now you could say that over the various TOCs that operate out of Edinburgh we now have a slightly greater geographical coverage in absolute terms - XC sign to Leeds, EC to Inverness, SR (Train Managers only) to Euston, some Virgin crews may have Birmingham? This is at the expense of operational flexibility as there is no real cross coverage between TOCs. Traction knowledge has also been lost - ScotRail can't work HSTs, nor XC work 156s. EC certainly don't do turbos.
All in all this increases the staffing levels required and makes additional through trains away from a TOCs core less likely due to the increased negative economies of scale. With these negative economies removed (by having ONE railway) there may be some economic justification, not to mention social, for bringing back former lost through connections.
When I worked at InterCity (Edinburgh), we only covered Edinburgh - CarlisleUnder BR Edinburgh depot covered as far South as Preston & Newcastle, as far West as Glasgow, & North via Stirling, Perth, & Dundee to Aberdeen (& all points East of that axis) - regardless of the type of traction. Lots of trains ran to through destinations but the crews changed as required
Ah, but here is the rub! The way the railway was privatised into many separate TOCs has artificially increased costs and specifically in this case made through running trains more expensive.
Just look at the additional costs involved in rostering drivers for East Coast's "North of Edinburgh" services to Inverness & Aberdeen with the resulting lodging turns and non productive time with staff travelling passenger due to the infrequency of these services.
Under BR Edinburgh depot covered as far South as Preston & Newcastle, as far West as Glasgow, & North via Stirling, Perth, & Dundee to Aberdeen (& all points East of that axis) - regardless of the type of traction. Lots of trains ran to through destinations but the crews changed as required.
Now you could say that over the various TOCs that operate out of Edinburgh we now have a slightly greater geographical coverage in absolute terms - XC sign to Leeds, EC to Inverness, SR (Train Managers only) to Euston, some Virgin crews may have Birmingham? This is at the expense of operational flexibility as there is no real cross coverage between TOCs. Traction knowledge has also been lost - ScotRail can't work HSTs, nor XC work 156s. EC certainly don't do turbos.
All in all this increases the staffing levels required and makes additional through trains away from a TOCs core less likely due to the increased negative economies of scale. With these negative economies removed (by having ONE railway) there may be some economic justification, not to mention social, for bringing back former lost through connections.
I cant help but feel that even without privatisation much of the perceived advantage of BR would have vanished now with the changing safety culture, in BR days many people signed traction as grandfather rights, i dont believe ORR, DFT or whatever would allow that today same with route knowledge i would suggest.
Rail's strength is on the biggest flows, like Aberdeen - Dundee - Edinburgh, which people use daily.
Whilst there will be demand to get between Dundee and Carlisle (in the way that there's demand to get between any two connurbations) it's far too marginal for rail to focus heavily on.
If lots of shorter journeys can be tagged together (like the Edinburgh - Plymouth XC service) then fair enough, that allows some tiny flows to get a direct service, but its not worth messing up stable services for these small markets. Any spare resources should be concentrated on improving the current busy services.
IMO that still constitutes a change, which one doesn't need to do when travelling by car.
When I worked at InterCity (Edinburgh), we only covered Edinburgh - Carlisle
The Glasgow staff covered Glasgow - Preston
Virgin crews currently cover Edinburgh - Preston (as far as I am aware)
Every train I have used has a crew change at Preston (both Euston and Birmingham)