• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Rail Replacement Services should replace trains as a last resort

Status
Not open for further replies.

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Everybody except me is ill informed and makes up facts but I'll just make up facts to suit my argument.

You couldn't make it up. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. And there are a number of posters, notably @The Planner @ChiefPlanner @Bald Rick who do point out facts and are often decried by crayonistas or idealists that they don't know what they're talking about and how allegedly BR used to do all sorts of things which are simply not practical now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
@306024 is correct - having drivers or conductors available for diversions which may be relevant 2 days every couple of years is not a sensible or practical use of resource.
There are only 2 days of engineering work every couple of years on the northern section of the WCML are there? Another fact you have just made up. You really need to stop digging while you still retain a shred of credibility.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,940
Location
East Anglia
Even if you had some crews that sign the diversionary route, they would have to be in a suitable spot in the roster to be able to work those diagrams, bearing in mind previous and next workings, and the fact that they are humans who don't, in fact can't work every shift available. The more weeks that diversions occur the more crews you need, which adds to the time and cost necessary to maintain knowledge. We can explain all this, but we can't force people to believe us unfortunately.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
There are only 2 days of engineering work every couple of years on the northern section of the WCML are there? Another fact you have just made up. You really need to stop digging while you still retain a shred of credibility.

You appear to have a serious 'bee in bonnet' about this issue, despite what appear to be a number of sensible responses. Is there a particular incident that has badly affected you - or do you just not like travelling by coach/bus ?
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
But with the diadvantages that:
1. You have to mess about changing between train & bus.
2. Due to the inevitable uncertainties about roadworks & congestion, you can never be certain of making connections with onward rail services at the end of the "bus" leg of the journey.
It is fine to arrange relatively straightforward diversions (such as Northampton on the WCML or the Erewash Valley on the Midland Main Line). These often involve waiting around to 'drop back' onto another standard path, to avoid disrupting other services through key nodes. Even then there is often a significant reduction in frequency for some rail journeys, such as Derby-Sheffield or whatever. These kind of diversions are also relatively easy to maintain route knowledge over, often with empty stock moves.
The problem with routes such as Anglo-Scottish is the there is a range of destinations at both the north and south ends - Edinburgh/Glasgow, Euston/Birmingham/Manchester and more. Service alterations and diversions on the core route can quickly spill over into effects at nodes that these days are effectively full. Chronic performance problems in these cities keep many parallel threads going. Even modest numbers of diversions via the Settle & Carlisle or Dumfries can quickly cause problems not only at Manchester, Glasgow and Leeds but also at subsidiary nodes that are far busier and more fragile than they were 25 years ago, such as Blackburn, Shipley and Kilmarnock.
An infrequent alternative service can mean that passengers expecting to make a 'through' journey by rail then discover that they still have to change and hang around for lengthy periods at Preston, Carlisle, Crewe or wherever before travelling on a potentially overcrowded and slow alternative. Meanwhile the users of other services not directly affected by the engineering works can discover that their rolling stock has been cut or taken to resource other routes or their timetable has been slashed to free up paths, quite apart from general performance often taking a hit.
During my career I had many experiences with the operation of amended services on both a pre-planned and emergency basis, organised blockades, procured alternative road transport, supervised arrangements at station level, written publicity material, worked on the development of Schedule 4 and other aspects.
The environment has changed out of all recognition over the years, through motorways, electrification, the move to multiple units, greatly reduced availability of freight locomotives, safety-led restrictions on things like single line working and at last the growing availability of bi-modes. Expecting things to remain the same as they were in the 1980s or whenever is unrealistic.
At least with modern communications, improved station accessibility, low-floor buses and greater availability of things like coffee shops and drinking water at stations the overall passenger experience can often be managed better.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
There are only 2 days of engineering work every couple of years on the northern section of the WCML are there? Another fact you have just made up. You really need to stop digging while you still retain a shred of credibility.

You really should stop jumping to conclusions or making claims about what people said that aren't correct - you only end up looking foolish.

So, to give a bit more context, because clearly you haven't understood.

IF you look at the Carlisle to Edinburgh example (as that was the one which had been raised), the ONLY viable diversion would be Newcastle and Berwick. And not ALL of the engineering works on the northern WCML have taken place along that stretch.

So if the engineering works are at Preston (which is the northern WCML) or Penrith or Lancaster there isn't a practical diversion and a diversion via Hexham and Newcastle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

So how many days of disruption due to engineering have there been between Carlisle and Edinburgh that *might* have been mitigated by diverting via Newcastle and Berwick? It really has to be whole days or large parts of a day, not just disruption to the first or last train. And was the ECML open on those days, or was there already planned engineering on there which would have prevented diversions? Since you're so clever, I'm sure you'll be able to provide accurate answers to those....... (waits with bated breath).
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Even modest numbers of diversions via the Settle & Carlisle or Dumfries can quickly cause problems not only at Manchester, Glasgow and Leeds but also at subsidiary nodes that are far busier and more fragile they were 25 years ago .
On balance some routes will actually be less congested than 25 years ago, eg the Dumfries line underwent some double tracking a few years back and both it and the S&C have virtually no freight to worry about now coal traffic has virtually disappeared.
 
Last edited:

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
On balance some routes will actually be less congested than 25 years ago, eg the Dumfries line underwent some double tracking a few years back and both it and the S&C have virtually no freight now coal traffic has virtually disappeared.

But the S&C has a relatively low linespeed and very long signal blocks, which means its capacity / mile is far lower than the WCML is for example even though they are double track over some of their 'parallel' routes.

The S&C still has significant flows of gypsum, cement and quarry traffic (Railwayworld.net) so those freight flows still exist.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
But the S&C has a relatively low linespeed and very long signal blocks, which means its capacity / mile is far lower than the WCML is for example even though they are double track over some of their 'parallel' routes.
.
Yes, ideally speeds would be higher, but around 15-20 years ago you had 2 TOCs (VTWC+VXC) both diverting during engineering works plus significantly more freight , so difficult to imagine it would be impossible today, however clearly it’s been decided it’s cheaper to run busses
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Yes, ideally speeds would be higher, but around 15-20 years ago you had 2 TOCs (VTWC+VXC) both diverting during engineering works plus significantly more freight , so difficult to imagine it would be impossible today, however clearly it’s been decided it’s cheaper to run busses

But 15-20 years ago the rolling stock was completely different. The current electric trains cannot divert over non-electrified routes, without significant expense.
Clearly it has been decided that it is cheaper to run coaches, and nothing wrong in that - passenger convenience is not at any price.
 

Scotty

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2009
Messages
435
Location
Boston, Lincs
And there are times when LUL will close a station (or advertise it closed) because they know the capacity can't be managed Special arrangements at Arsenal, Drayton Park etc during matches at Highbury are an example.

Why would matches at Fleetwood affect the London underground?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
And there are times when LUL will close a station (or advertise it closed) because they know the capacity can't be managed Special arrangements at Arsenal, Drayton Park etc during matches at Highbury are an example. It's considered safer to send folk to the larger Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington stations than totally swamp a small local station.
I mostly agree with your post BUT the former Highbury Stadium London has been a residential housing estate for in excess of 10 years (the Emirates stadium on the other hand). Oh and Drayton Park isn't under either TfL or LUL control; had you said Holloway Road...
I've lived in that area for 30ish years (but my name on here reveals my football sympathies)...
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
But 15-20 years ago the rolling stock was completely different. The current electric trains cannot divert over non-electrified routes, without significant expense.

Pendolinos have a fleet of diesel locomotives specially designed to drag them!

Take Easter. The WCML was bustituted from Lancaster. The S&C and Dumfries lines were open. A diversion would have taken longer than the main line, but quicker than a scabby coach.

No - the service you pay for is to get from place "A" to place "B" - check the National T&Cs - it doesn't state it *must* be a train, nor does it state there *must* be diversions.

That's not in argument, we all know they can, it is whether they *should*. It's just typical cutting corners from Britain's favourite tax dodger.

It is fine to arrange relatively straightforward diversions (such as Northampton on the WCML or the Erewash Valley on the Midland Main Line). These often involve waiting around to 'drop back' onto another standard path, to avoid disrupting other services through key nodes.

I'd say lines such as the S&C, Dumfries, Tyne Valley are fairly standard diversions. It's not an esoteric route. It seems to be a WCML thing to bustitute everything at the drop of a hat, to be quite honest.

When the ECML is shut they will usually divert- Durham Coast, Tyne Valley, Lincoln, they've even used the Stillington freight line in the past. The HST fleet helps, sure, but they drag 91s too.

I think the arrangements at Easter- about to be repeated next weekend- were disgraceful.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Can anybody provide an update on how many locomotives (presumably Class 57s) are available for Pendolino drags? Wikipedia is not entirely clear but seems to suggest only six (with DRS) have the requisite couplers. I am not sure that this 'fleet' would stretch very far for trains diverted from Preston to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the S&C, Dumfries and Newcastle, etc.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
That's not in argument, we all know they can, it is whether they *should*. It's just typical cutting corners from Britain's favourite tax dodger.

.

Go on, humour me. Provide the evidence that VTWC didn't look at drags and diversions instead of bustitutions. And that Branson told them not to.

As ever you're offering opinion, now provide facts to back it up.
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Pendolinos have a fleet of diesel locomotives specially designed to drag them!

Take Easter. The WCML was bustituted from Lancaster. The S&C and Dumfries lines were open. A diversion would have taken longer than the main line, but quicker than a scabby coach.



That's not in argument, we all know they can, it is whether they *should*. It's just typical cutting corners from Britain's favourite tax dodger.



I'd say lines such as the S&C, Dumfries, Tyne Valley are fairly standard diversions. It's not an esoteric route. It seems to be a WCML thing to bustitute everything at the drop of a hat, to be quite honest.

When the ECML is shut they will usually divert- Durham Coast, Tyne Valley, Lincoln, they've even used the Stillington freight line in the past. The HST fleet helps, sure, but they drag 91s too.

I think the arrangements at Easter- about to be repeated next weekend- were disgraceful.

We all know that diversions can be done, the question is are they cost effective.

It is not a cutting corners from the TOC - ultimately they are not going to be paying the additional costs, it is going to be Network Rail and/or the DfT.

So the costs of the diesel locomotives, route training, disruption to other services, additional administration versus bus substitution have to be weighed against the gain, and has presumably been judged that the buses are more cost effective.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I guess that, given the extra flexibility and availability, it's inevitable that the bus/coach will usually win over shorter distances. It's only when you're talking of thousands of passengers, constantly, that the train being diverted might win.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
It is like I have mentioned before, lots of work is done between TOCs and NR before disruption occurs, just because people are not privvy to what is decided and what is decided against doesnt mean there is a default fall back to the worst option.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
I guess that, given the extra flexibility and availability, it's inevitable that the bus/coach will usually win over shorter distances. It's only when you're talking of thousands of passengers, constantly, that the train being diverted might win.

Quite.
On one of the last occasions that VTWC diverted over the S&C, I made a trip to Carlisle and back (on a Saturday) to sample this. I think the additional journey time each way was about 90 min. In both directions there was a significant signal stop (at Settle Junction going north and Low House coming south) awaiting a previous train to clear a long block section.
More to the point was that, in spite of the reduced frequency, both trains were lightly loaded - passengers had voted with their feet and had made alternative arrangements (presumably travelling another day or route) rather than endure longer journey times. It is unsurprising subsequent closures have been replaced by ( cheaper) coaches at similar journey times.
Which makes me wonder whether the most noise on this subject is made by rail enthusiasts pining for rare workings, rather than the general public (aside from the general complaint of any disruption!)
 
Last edited:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Quite.
On one of the last occasions that VTWC diverted over the S&C, I made a trip to Carlisle and back (on a Saturday) to sample this. I think the additional journey time each way was about 90 min. In both directions there was a significant signal stop (at Settle Junction going north and Low House coming south) awaiting a previous train to clear a long block section.
More to the point was that, in spite of the reduced frequency, both trains were lightly loaded - passengers had voted with their feet and had made alternative arrangements (presumably travelling another day or route) rather than endure longer journey times. It is unsurprising subsequent closures have been replaced by ( cheaper) coaches at similar journey times.
Which makes me wonder whether the most noise on this subject is made by rail enthusiasts pining for rare workings, rather than the general public (aside from the general complaint of any disruption!)

Agreed. It's probably a bigger issue on a forum such as this, most of the travelling public seem far less concerned by an *occasional* bustitution (even if a bit frustrating).
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
Many times in Southern territory - not just in the more recent widely-publicised Brighton Main Line closures - trains from that place, up to London have been diverted via Littlehampton and the Arun Valley Line, to rejoin the main route at Three Bridges. Replacement buses have also been provided, giving customers a choice of a) a much longer but train-only option, or b) a quicker but less comfortable bus/train combination
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Many times in Southern territory - not just in the more recent widely-publicised Brighton Main Line closures - trains from that place, up to London have been diverted via Littlehampton and the Arun Valley Line, to rejoin the main route at Three Bridges. Replacement buses have also been provided, giving customers a choice of a) a much longer but train-only option, or b) a quicker but less comfortable bus/train combination
And the buses can actually turn out to be rather popular!
 

Bob M

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2008
Messages
107
I think passengers should get compensation when buses are used. Why should they pay train prices for a bus service? And this would give the operator an incentive to avoid buses.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,463
Any disincentive to TOCs in terms of higher cost will make them less likely to agree disruptive engineering access and therefore maintenance, renewals and investment into the national network will suffer.

I believe each franchise agreement assumes a certain level of revenue loss due to anticipated levels of engineering disruption. Those TOCs who are skimping on the replacement arrangements are probably protecting their bottom line to avoid defaulting financially. Remember, profit margins are only 2-4% !
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Unhappily many TOC's, such as Virgin, have embraced bustitution when, with a little forethought, they could have put in place effective rail alternatives via diversionary routes. This is doubtless because they don't have to worry about route knowledge, complex timetabling etc and above all its very cheap. However one look sat it though unless there is no practical rail alternative, the passenger is being well short changed.

In view of this I propose that for each proposed bustitution, the cost of providing that bus service should be established and the cost of any realistic rail alternative. The rail operator should then be given the option of using a bus, in which case they will be fined the difference less the cost of a suitable refund to each passenger. Should they instead use a reasonable rail alternative, then they would neither pay the fine nor the passenger reimbursement (as passenger is still travelling by chosen method).

What, apart from howls of protest from the ever-greedy bearded one, is not to like with this proposal?

this is a comedy post no? I love these threads! The realities of operating our fractured, competing and complicated railways are oversimplified in the desire to return to some mythical halcyon day.

If we’re talking Virgin then the fact they took the Settle & Carlisle, and various others, off their drivers’ cards a few years back gives a good clue. They can’t divert if their drivers don’t sign the route.

Can’t provide a “worthwhile” service so might as well provide none at all. That is probably a minority view. I also said S&C and others. The S&C isn’t the only diversionary route they have abandoned.

LNER/VTEC are able to divert via the Tyne Valley when the ECML is closed north of Newcastle, so one must question why VTWC cannot do the same in reverse. At Easter the WCML was closed from Lancaster; more recently it has been closed from Carlisle to Scotland. Anyone who says diversions couldn't be done- not that it is expensive and/or inconvenient- should prove it.

How do you get your Pendolino along the non electrified diversionary route? It isn't 1986 anymore. You cant hook of your electric at Carlisle or Preston and lash on a 47.

Your next argument will be to use a Voyager instead. Are you sure there is sufficient slack in the fleet to allow for their use? What happens to the North Wales services you have cancelled to provide your diesel service?

If it really cared about passengers, at franchise renewals, DfT could insist that TOCs retain / regain crew route knowledge over possible diversionary routes -- and specify that any available diversionary route should normally be used (albeit at reduced frequencies) in preference to use of replacement buses - for all but short length bus journeys. It would also need to specify to NR that, where two alternative routes are available, planned engineering work would be permitted only on one of those two routes (other than in the case of real emergencies).

Have you thought to ask passengers what they like/want? Have you just assumed that because you like trains trundling, slowly, over obscure routes everyone does? How will you cope if people plump for the fastest route from A-B and accept the bus transfer as a slight hardship.

In relation to your final sentence: Do you honestly think this isnt already done?

As an example, if there was engineering work between Preston & Lancaster, there would be buses only over that section. There would be no buses between Preston & Carlisle; instead a train, hourly or every 2 hours, would divert via Settle & Carlisle, and there would be rail services between Lancaster & Carlisle.

But what if it is easier for everyone to use Preston station for your bus hub? Do we make things even harder for passengers simply to please you and your restrictive ruling?

Because this is Railforums and therefore ill informed, unsubstantiated opinion beats hard facts any day of the week ;)

A very accurate comment!

Very good. Not sure that everyone realises what is involved in keeping crews route knowledge competency over diversionary routes that are used infrequently, both in crew and management time. If it were practical and cost effective it would be done. If it isn't it won't.

More to the point they don't care. They are experts and have said "MAKE IT SO" therefore so it shall be

Everybody who has any idea of how it works, and why it is done, knows why TOCs do it but it doesn’t stop people coming up with simply ludicrous arguments for why the TOCs are right.

Please explain it to us oh great one. I thought they did this because it was the most cost effective way to ensure continuation of service at times of disrupted working.

I think passengers should get compensation when buses are used. Why should they pay train prices for a bus service? And this would give the operator an incentive to avoid buses.

I suspect they just wont bother. They would also push back a lot more than already on engineering access.

Any disincentive to TOCs in terms of higher cost will make them less likely to agree disruptive engineering access and therefore maintenance, renewals and investment into the national network will suffer.

Is another point missed by experts here.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The same way Virgin already get a Pendolino to Holyhead?

they dont.

There are 4 or 5 class 57's fitted with the right coupling equipment to haul a Pendo. That doesn't seem enough to run any kind of service. That is before we go through the massive pita of getting the two units coupled up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top