Situations where extra stops could reduce/change services

[HST43257]

In some cases, there may be fast services and slow services on a route, but it may be better to put these together to open up more service opportunities.

One I can think of is:
Taking away the Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley stopper
Keeping the 2tph fast service, but giving 1 a Normanton stop and 1 a Darton stop
Giving the Penistone line its second service per hour
Huddersfield to Castleford extending to York.

Normanton doesn’t get its 2nd Leeds service, but it gets a faster hourly Leeds service AND a frequent York service


Any other ideas?

 

[Joshua483]

In some cases, there may be fast services and slow services on a route, but it may be better to put these together to open up more service opportunities.

One I can think of is:
Taking away the Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley stopper
Keeping the 2tph fast service, but giving 1 a Normanton stop and 1 a Darton stop
Giving the Penistone line its second service per hour
Huddersfield to Castleford extending to York.

Normanton doesn’t get its 2nd Leeds service, but it gets a faster hourly Leeds service AND a frequent York service


Any other ideas?

The Windsor lines and the Island Line.

 

[Peter C]

Would calling an IET at Combe/Finstock/Ascott-under-Wychwood be possible? If so, could stopping one in the morning and in the evening allow for another faster train on the Cotswold Line which takes the place of the morning/evening stoppers (if they still run during COVID times)? I have absolutely no clue - there'll be someone on here who can help.

-Peter

 

[30907]

In some cases, there may be fast services and slow services on a route, but it may be better to put these together to open up more service opportunities.

One I can think of is:
1. Taking away the Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley stopper
2. Keeping the 2tph fast service, but giving 1 a Normanton stop and 1 a Darton stop
3. Giving the Penistone line its second service per hour
4. Huddersfield to Castleford extending to York.

Normanton doesn’t get its 2nd Leeds service, but it gets a faster hourly Leeds service AND a frequent York service

(My numbering added above)
I like #1 and #2, especially if the Nottingham train switches to the direct route, but you need to add a Leeds-Castleford into the mix.
So you've only saved enough resources to run #3 as far as Penistone - was that what you meant?

#4 doesn't depend on the others - it just needs extra resources and suitable paths. Worth considering in its own right.

Would calling an IET at Combe/Finstock/Ascott-under-Wychwood be possible? If so, could stopping one in the morning and in the evening allow for another faster train on the Cotswold Line which takes the place of the morning/evening stoppers (if they still run during COVID times)? I have absolutely no clue - there'll be someone on here who can help.

No idea whether it's possible (ISTR from many years ago that the platforms are very short), but from a timetable point of view you are slowing down an existing non-stopping train to create room for a new one so I don't see an advantage.

 

[Peter C]

No idea whether it's possible (ISTR from many years ago that the platforms are very short), but from a timetable point of view you are slowing down an existing non-stopping train to create room for a new one so I don't see an advantage.

The platforms at Combe and Finstock are very short, yes. I suppose it doesn't make that much sense then: I hadn't thought about it that way.

-Peter

 

[Manclad83]

(My numbering added above)
I like #1 and #2, especially if the Nottingham train switches to the direct route, but you need to add a Leeds-Castleford into the mix.
So you've only saved enough resources to run #3 as far as Penistone - was that what you meant?

#4 doesn't depend on the others - it just needs extra resources and suitable paths. Worth considering in its own right.

No idea whether it's possible (ISTR from many years ago that the platforms are very short), but from a timetable point of view you are slowing down an existing non-stopping train to create room for a new one so I don't see an advantage.

Those kind of skip stop patterns wouldn’t be popular though. You are basically decimating the Barnsley boroughs rail network with many, short (ish) journeys requiring a change. That’s fine if frequency is considerably increased but your plan doesn’t seem to.

 

[30907]

Those kind of skip stop patterns wouldn’t be popular though. You are basically decimating the Barnsley boroughs rail network with many, short (ish) journeys requiring a change. That’s fine if frequency is considerably increased but your plan doesn’t seem to.

AIUI (it's the OP's plan not mine) Barnsley-Penistone gets double the service at the expense of Barnsley-Wakefield(-Castleford).
I haven't been that way for a year or two, so I can't say whether Barnsley-Castleford or (eg) Wombwell-Normanton are significant enough flows to require a through service - you would want to look at actual and potential traffic flows before deciding to make the change.

 

[TheWalrus]

- Call some Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance services at Ivybridge to remove Exeter/Newton Abbot-Plymouth locals;
- Increase Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts to hourly between London and Westbury, taking on Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn calls - Paddington-Bedwyns terminated at Newbury with 387s;
- Cardiff-Portsmouths limited calls at Dilton Marsh, removing Westbury-Warminster/Southampton services;
- Kenilworth calls on Manchester-Bournemouth services to remove WM Leamington-Coventry services if platform length issues can be solved.

Surely these ideas would save a lot of money?

 

[Ianno87]

- Kenilworth calls on Manchester-Bournemouth services to remove WM Leamington-Coventry services if platform length issues can be solved.

Surely these ideas would save a lot of money?

Basic problem with Kenilworth is (pre-Covid) lack of capacity on XC to accommodate extra passengers from yet more calls.

So shuttling a unit between Leamington and Coventry is cheaper than doubling up every Voyager between Manchester and Bournemouth (until such a time that became justified on its own grounds).

 

[30907]

- Call some Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance services at Ivybridge to remove Exeter/Newton Abbot-Plymouth locals:
- Increase Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts to hourly between London and Westbury, taking on Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn calls - Paddington-Bedwyns terminated at Newbury with 387s;
- Cardiff-Portsmouths limited calls at Dilton Marsh, removing Westbury-Warminster/Southampton services;
Surely these ideas would save a lot of money?

1 and 3 possibly, depending on what other function the locals servep.
2 would require at least one extra unit, though it could be 2x 387 saving 1x 80x - adding 10min on the journey to Exeter and Torbay is another issue.
Perhaps the locals would tolerate Kintbury and Bedwyn losing half their offpeak trains to avoid that?

 

[TheWalrus]

1 and 3 possibly, depending on what other function the locals servep.
2 would require at least one extra unit, though it could be 2x 387 saving 1x 80x - adding 10min on the journey to Exeter and Torbay is another issue.
Perhaps the locals would tolerate Kintbury and Bedwyn losing half their offpeak trains to avoid that?

2 would require an extra 800 but you would save 3 by cutting back the Bedwyns and replacing with 387s. So a net gain there I believe? It would add an additional 9 minutes to the journey but creates more journey opportunities and the saving should be more than the cost. Personally I think it would be ok if Kintbury and Bedwyn went down to 1tp2h off-peak, but the locals certainly would kick off as they tried this in 2006 and it ended up with keeping the hourly service.

Basic problem with Kenilworth is (pre-Covid) lack of capacity on XC to accommodate extra passengers from yet more calls.

So shuttling a unit between Leamington and Coventry is cheaper than doubling up every Voyager between Manchester and Bournemouth (until such a time that became justified on its own grounds).

Ok makes sense, thank you.

 

[30907]

2 would require an extra 800 but you would save 3 by cutting back the Bedwyns and replacing with 387s. So a net gain there I believe?

Cutting Bedwyns saves 1 unit (by interworking with the Kennett Valley stoppers) but you need 2 extra units (minimum) to make Westbury hourly instead of 2 hourly. So net loss.

 

[TheWalrus]

Cutting Bedwyns saves 1 unit (by interworking with the Kennett Valley stoppers) but you need 2 extra units (minimum) to make Westbury hourly instead of 2 hourly. So net loss.

Should be 1 because the Exeter already exists every two hours?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

2 would require an extra 800 but you would save 3 by cutting back the Bedwyns and replacing with 387s. So a net gain there I believe? It would add an additional 9 minutes to the journey but creates more journey opportunities and the saving should be more than the cost.

And that’s where your plan doesn’t work, the Exeter semi-fasts can’t have 9 minutes added into them without knocking onto the following xx.03 ex Paddington. Don’t forget there’s some 10 minute or so headways beyond Castle Cary just where fast is catching up the previous slow. The gap between slow and fast as it is currently is tight in headways.

You’d also be arriving into Exeter some 10 minutes later and leaving some 10 minutes earlier to accommodate the extra stops meaning your turnarounds would be too tight at Exeter so you would need to inject an extra 80x on those circuits.

Timetable planning isn’t quite so easy as just growing some extra calls in.

Cardiff-Portsmouths limited calls at Dilton Marsh, removing Westbury-Warminster/Southampton services;

That I believe is temporarily happening in the May 2021 timetable on Saturdays where commuter / schools traffic is obviously less on weekends.

 

[30907]

Should be 1 because the Exeter already exists every two hours?

A 2-hourly additional Westbury requires 2 units. Curtailing the Bedwyns at Newbury saves 1.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some cases, there may be fast services and slow services on a route, but it may be better to put these together to open up more service opportunities.

Assuming the CLC (Liverpool-Manchester via Warrington) doesn't get Merseyrailed/Metrolinked, I'd remove the long distance and stopping services and replace with a pattern of 4tph thus:

2 x Liverpool, South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington W, Warrington C, all stations to Manchester Oxford Road
2 x Liverpool, all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Irlam, Urmston, Deansgate and all stations to Manchester Airport

All operated using Class 195s in either 3 or 4-car formations to benefit from the EMU-like acceleration.

Does that count?

 

[TheWalrus]

And that’s where your plan doesn’t work, the Exeter semi-fasts can’t have 9 minutes added into them without knocking onto the following xx.03 ex Paddington. Don’t forget there’s some 10 minute or so headways beyond Castle Cary just where fast is catching up the previous slow. The gap between slow and fast as it is currently is tight in headways.

You’d also be arriving into Exeter some 10 minutes later and leaving some 10 minutes earlier to accommodate the extra stops meaning your turnarounds would be too tight at Exeter so you would need to inject an extra 80x on those circuits.

Timetable planning isn’t quite so easy as just growing some extra calls in.




That I believe is temporarily happening in the May 2021 timetable on Saturdays where commuter / schools traffic is obviously less on weekends.

I know that, and all your points I already considered. I think I did something with the Cheltenhams leaving London later and made the Exeter leave at xx27 or something, to ensure it doesn’t get caught up by the fast.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I know that, and all your points I already considered. I think I did something with the Cheltenhams leaving London later

Run the Cheltenham’s later and they loose their path at Gloucester and breach the minimum turnaround at Cheltenham. The current GWR plan a very carefully crafted timetable that delivers good performance but hasn’t got much scope in its structure for fundamental changes!

Leave London earlier with the Exeter at xx27 and you are still injecting an extra 80x set as you will break the minimum turnaround with the current arrival time from Exeter and have difficulties platforming it at Paddington.

The turnarounds are very efficient currently, putting in extra stops almost risks injecting as many sets as you save on replacing broken turnarounds.

 

[TheWalrus]

A 2-hourly additional Westbury requires 2 units. Curtailing the Bedwyns at Newbury saves 1.

Effectively the two-hourly Newbury fast extends to Westbury. So say that’s currently one unit that becomes two. Then Bedwyns cut back to Newbury saves one. So I think that’s the same amount of units? 7 either way? You can also make more efficiencies by interwork the Newbury semi-fast with the Reading-Newbury stopper.

Run the Cheltenham’s later and they loose their path at Gloucester and breach the minimum turnaround at Cheltenham. The current GWR plan a very carefully crafted timetable that delivers good performance but hasn’t got much scope in its structure for fundamental changes!

Leave London earlier with the Exeter at xx27 and you are still injecting an extra 80x set as you will break the minimum turnaround with the current arrival time from Exeter and have difficulties platforming it at Paddington.

The turnarounds are very efficient currently, putting in extra stops almost risks injecting as many sets as you save on replacing broken turnarounds.

I understand all this but it was something I looked at a while ago, I can’t remember exactly what I did to work it all out. I’ll try and find my workings.
edit: I moved the Cheltenham earlier to xx19, behind the Cardiff. That should work as long as it doesn’t clash with something at Gloucester!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Effectively the two-hourly Newbury fast extends to Westbury. So say that’s currently one unit that becomes two. Then Bedwyns cut back to Newbury saves one. So I think that’s the same amount of units? 7 either way? You can also make more efficiencies by interwork the Newbury semi-fast with the Reading-Newbury stopper.


I understand all this but it was something I looked at a while ago, I can’t remember exactly what I did to work it all out. I’ll try and find my workings.
edit: I moved the Cheltenham earlier to xx19, behind the Cardiff. That should work as long as it doesn’t clash with something at Gloucester!

Ah so occupying one of the two freight paths each hour which exists between Didcot and Swindon (they are behind both the South Wales trains).

Accommodating the freight paths was one of the reasons given by GWR for moving the Didcot Parkway call from the xx18 Cardiff to the xx30 Bristol as this gave a bigger gap between the two trains.

You’d do better if you wanted the trains merged just to take the xx.07 path for the Exeter and accept the two services for the West Country are together.

 

[HST43257]

Assuming the CLC (Liverpool-Manchester via Warrington) doesn't get Merseyrailed/Metrolinked, I'd remove the long distance and stopping services and replace with a pattern of 4tph thus:

2 x Liverpool, South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington W, Warrington C, all stations to Manchester Oxford Road
2 x Liverpool, all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Irlam, Urmston, Deansgate and all stations to Manchester Airport

All operated using Class 195s in either 3 or 4-car formations to benefit from the EMU-like acceleration.

Does that count?

I like this, but I’d only do it post NPR

 

[30907]

Effectively the two-hourly Newbury fast extends to Westbury. So say that’s currently one unit that becomes two. Then Bedwyns cut back to Newbury saves one. So I think that’s the same amount of units? 7 either way? You can also make more efficiencies by interwork the Newbury semi-fast with the Reading-Newbury stopper.

My apologies. I had competely missed the Newbury terminators, not having devoted much time to Table 116 over the last couple of years. They seem rather pointless IMHO.
In that case I can see a reasonable case for rejigging the timetable - if it can be made to work, which seems doubtful.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

My apologies. I had competely missed the Newbury terminators, not having devoted much time to Table 116 over the last couple of years. They seem rather pointless IMHO.

Providing a town the size of Newbury a half-hourly service to London isn’t exactly pointless.

 

[TheWalrus]

Why couldn’t it work?

My apologies. I had competely missed the Newbury terminators, not having devoted much time to Table 116 over the last couple of years. They seem rather pointless IMHO.
In that case I can see a reasonable case for rejigging the timetable - if it can be made to work, which seems doubtful.

I didn’t take into account freight, as I wasn’t aware of this. However the current Cheltenham path would then be vacant and I think the critical part of the timetable is between Reading and Paddington, these paths are crucial and very little room for manoeuvre.
You could put the Exeters/Westburys in the current Bedwyn path as you suggest, but obviously it’s not ideal being so close to the fast Plymouth/Penzance.

Ah so occupying one of the two freight paths each hour which exists between Didcot and Swindon (they are behind both the South Wales trains).

Accommodating the freight paths was one of the reasons given by GWR for moving the Didcot Parkway call from the xx18 Cardiff to the xx30 Bristol as this gave a bigger gap between the two trains.

You’d do better if you wanted the trains merged just to take the xx.07 path for the Exeter and accept the two services for the West Country are together.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I think the critical part of the timetable is between Reading and Paddington, these paths are crucial and very little room for manoeuvre.

Its Didcot Parkway to Wootton Bassett that’s the critical part of the timetable structure and Network Rail has recently declared this as ‘congested infrastructure’

 

[TheWalrus]

Its Didcot Parkway to Wootton Bassett that’s the critical part of the timetable structure and Network Rail has recently declared this as ‘congested infrastructure’

I would agree with that, however I would say Reading to Paddington is more critical.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I would agree with that, however I would say Reading to Paddington is more critical.

Don’t forget Reading to Paddington has 4 aspect signalling and 2 minute planning headways. Didcot west has 3 aspect signalling and 4 minute planning headways so quite a reduction in available capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Is it 2 to Reading now? Thought it was only to Airport Jn?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is it 2 to Reading now? Thought it was only to Airport Jn?

Its 2 all the way to Reading now ‘fast-headway’ though there’s a stretch on the up around Southall where it’s 2.5

 

[TheWalrus]

Don’t forget Reading to Paddington has 4 aspect signalling and 2 minute planning headways. Didcot west has 3 aspect signalling and 4 minute planning headways so quite a reduction in available capacity.

I wasn’t aware of this, all I thought was it was 2.5 Reading to Paddington so this must have changed. It seems you have a lot more inside knowledge than me!