Pros And Cons of keeping the Highland Cheiftain

mralexn · 7 Feb 2012

what are the main Pros And Cons of keeping the Highland Cheiftain?

Pros: It's good for the economy Inverness

Cons: Is it too costly to run?

There seems to always be talk about getting rid of the service, do you think this will ever happen with Inverness getting ever bigger?

RailUK Forums

Aictos · 7 Feb 2012

It delivers great economic benefits for the Highland Mainline in general, tourism at Aviemore, Inverness and Gleneagles would not be as successful today if the Highland Chieftain was axed.

Overall useage on the line has increased by 154% from April 2003 to April 2010 and this will only grow stronger.

As a result, I think the savings from axing the service would pale in comparison to the economic benefits that the service delivers to the region and this is why it should not be axed or even reduced to run solely in Scotland.

scotsman · 7 Feb 2012

Well, if it were axed north of Edinburgh - there would still be a set required to work the 1200 KGX-EDB and the 1130 EDB-KGX

It would leave a gap of 3 hours between the first and second trains from Inverness to Edinburgh (0647-0941), so it's safe to say that ScotRail would have to run a service down around 0800ish

David Dunning · 8 Feb 2012

Having once made a documentary about the Highland Chieftain I would be very sad to see it go. Personally I think we should preserve thru trains to London where ever possible and connect more places direct to the capital. One train a day isnt a lot to ask for really. Anyway when you take into account the high cost of walk on fares... for most people ...Manchester to London is just one a day ( the cheap one you managed to book six weeks ago)

tbtc · 8 Feb 2012

mralexn said:
what are the main Pros And Cons of keeping the Highland Cheiftain?

Pros: It's good for the economy Inverness

Cons: Is it too costly to run?

There seems to always be talk about getting rid of the service, do you think this will ever happen with Inverness getting ever bigger?

Depends on whether people want a serious discussion or a lot of emotive stuff (without the numbers to attach to is)...

I think I can guess which way this discussion will go.

A few things to consider:

If HS2 takes over all/most of the London - Scotland trains, this would have an affect upon the stock used for this service.
The long journey from London to Edinburgh means that the Cheiftan has a chance of being late on the long single-track sections of line north of Perth (so more chance of being disruptive than if it only started from Edinburgh).
Splitting the service at Edinburgh may mean stock could be more efficiently used either side (e.g. not running a diesel train the 400 miles from Edinburgh to London, being able to interwork the stock with other services easier)
For all the "it's important to have direct links to London", I don't tend to get a lot of responses when I ask "what direct benefits can Wrexham/ Hull/ Sunderland etc attribute to having a new London train service introduced in recent years". Easy to say it's important to have a London link but hard to show real proof

Lee_Again · 8 Feb 2012

Does it really lose money?

The up train provides a useful morning commuter service to Edinburgh and the return provides an equivalent evening service. I'm sure Scotrail would love to run (and take the cash) for this service.

There's plenty of people who use the service across the boarder. I have used it on a number of occations for its entire length. And when I have there are a good deal of people doing the same.

If I was to find one problem it would be that the down service leaves too late. I would prefer an 08.00 start from Kings Cross. This would give it an arrival time of 16.00(ish) at Inverness. This would, of course, remove the returning Edinburgh commuters/day-trippers that ultimately make the service provision worth while.

Do the crew still swap at Newcastle? I guess that would provide for an hour or two break before the return. Maybe this adds to the timings too.

tbtc · 8 Feb 2012

Lee_Again said:
Does it really lose money?

The up train provides a useful morning commuter service to Edinburgh and the return provides an equivalent evening service. I'm sure Scotrail would love to run (and take the cash) for this service

It's all relative - what is the opportunity cost?

The current system means East Coast have to have a base in Inverness, they have to have their own staff trained to work Inverness duties, they have to roster them accordingly. Could that be done more efficiently with FSR staff? It's all relative.

Lee_Again · 8 Feb 2012

Does anybody have any (informed) idea what the absolute fastest schedule could be from Inverness to Edinburgh? Assumming limited stops and good pathing. Is 2h15 possible?

Coupled with a 4h Edinburgh>London time it would be interesting to see how much more traffic a 6h15 timing would generate. It's never going to compete with flying (journey time) but like my wife said the last time we used it, "I could be in New York the time it takes this thing to get home". And she said this while enjoying the magnificent scenery, sipping champers from her glass over a lovely full English (ok, Scottish). This, of course, was totally lost on her. Wives ?!?

HSTEd · 8 Feb 2012

Well if we ever did get HS2 to Scotland the travel time drops by 2hrs or more, but without some major work on the Highland Main Line I doubt we could ever get the travel time down much more than that.

Isn't this the sort of thing the collosal overorder of Bi-mode IEPs is supposed to cover?

cle · 8 Feb 2012

I'd say we could have another leaving earlier - so two trains a day.

Tomnick · 8 Feb 2012

tbtc said:
It's all relative - what is the opportunity cost?

The current system means East Coast have to have a base in Inverness, they have to have their own staff trained to work Inverness duties, they have to roster them accordingly. Could that be done more efficiently with FSR staff? It's all relative.

I didn't think East Coast had a traincrew depot at Inverness? I seem to remember reading somewhere that Newcastle crews work through to Inverness, lodging overnight and working back the next morning.

ainsworth74 · 8 Feb 2012

They have a catering crew depot there me thinks but not drivers or guards.

Aictos · 8 Feb 2012

ainsworth74 said:
They have a catering crew depot there me thinks but not drivers or guards.

East Coast do indeed have a catering crew depot there, staff work as far south as York.

LE Greys · 8 Feb 2012

tbtc said:
For all the "it's important to have direct links to London", I don't tend to get a lot of responses when I ask "what direct benefits can Wrexham/ Hull/ Sunderland etc attribute to having a new London train service introduced in recent years". Easy to say it's important to have a London link but hard to show real proof

It's also easy to say that in an economic downturn when most of these services have not been going long enough to find out if they are having any real effect. The best answer would be to ask someone like the Federation of Small Businesses or the CBI to find out what they say (miles outside my field). Still, from what I've observed of the Aberdeen services, the numbers passing through Edinburgh are quite high, and many have a lot of luggage with them. If the SNP in particular think that they will be happy to change at Waverley, then they are very much mistaken. If I get the chance, I intend to survey them to find out. Still, I suspect that the only people to benefit from splitting the service will be the airlines (which is exactly what I told Transport Scotland recently).

merlodlliw · 8 Feb 2012

tbtc said:
Depends on whether people want a serious discussion or a lot of emotive stuff (without the numbers to attach to is)...

I think I can guess which way this discussion will go.

A few things to consider:

If HS2 takes over all/most of the London - Scotland trains, this would have an affect upon the stock used for this service.

The long journey from London to Edinburgh means that the Cheiftan has a chance of being late on the long single-track sections of line north of Perth (so more chance of being disruptive than if it only started from Edinburgh).

Splitting the service at Edinburgh may mean stock could be more efficiently used either side (e.g. not running a diesel train the 400 miles from Edinburgh to London, being able to interwork the stock with other services easier)

For all the "it's important to have direct links to London", I don't tend to get a lot of responses when I ask "what direct benefits can Wrexham/ Hull/ Sunderland etc attribute to having a new London train service introduced in recent years". Easy to say it's important to have a London link but hard to show real proof

Surprised it took you so long, in Wrexham s case having a direct link to London assists in attracting industry,it also assists in drawing down funding
and not least it ticks a box for city status, having the town on the departures board at Euston creates interest in the town & of course tourism, you have not asked about Shrewsbury the County Town of Shropshire & now the only English County without a direct London service, yet as over 30 trains a day to Cardiff. W/S did create 60 jobs while it ran.

I could also ask what real benefit does Carmarthen get from a direct London service, other than FGW having to run it.

Bob

tbtc · 8 Feb 2012

merlodlliw said:
Surprised it took you so long, in Wrexham s case having a direct link to London assists in attracting industry,it also assists in drawing down funding and not least it ticks a box for city status, having the town on the departures board at Euston creates interest in the town & of course tourism, you have not asked about Shrewsbury the County Town of Shropshire & now the only English County without a direct London service, yet as over 30 trains a day to Cardiff. W/S did create 60 jobs while it ran.

I could also ask what real benefit does Carmarthen get from a direct London service, other than FGW having to run it

Ach, you know me Bob... :lol:

I'm glad you mentioned "box ticking" there; the whole "we need a direct London link" feels like this to me. Fair enough for places within (say) 100 miles of London, where the capital is in commuting distance, but it becomes less and less important the further out you go.

I'd suggest that Inverness would be better off having the single track sections on the lines to Perth/Aberdeen tackled, as a straight hourly service on the Highland Main Line and/or the Aberdeen service would be of more use.

What real benefit does Carmarthen get from it's London service? Probably not a lot, other than ticking a box.

To answer the point earlier in the thread about East Coast having staff sleeping over in Inverness every night, that must make things a lot more complicated/ expensive (compared to having ScotRail running all Inverness services, so they could use Inverness staff on the early morning/ late night services)

Greenback · 8 Feb 2012

The only benefit I cna see from having a direct link to London, whether it be one train a day or more, is that the decision makers, normally London based, might have a slightly higher awareness of somewhere with a direc tlink as opposed to somewhere without a direct service, or, even worse, without a railway at all!

It's a bit like having a league football team. More people are probably aware of Chesterfield from hearing its name read out in the football scores, than they are of, oh I don't know, Newark.

Apart from the slightly higher profile, the only benefit to Carmarthen is that there is plenty of room for commuters to Swansea on the 0740 morning HST! But to the towns and cities in question, the raised profile is probably worth an awful lot.

Clip · 8 Feb 2012

They should keep it - one of my favourite journeys and one I do a few times a year too.

Lampshade · 9 Feb 2012

Greenback said:
It's a bit like having a league football team. More people are probably aware of Chesterfield from hearing its name read out in the football scores, than they are of, oh I don't know, Newark.

Well it is known as the only town in Britain that's an anagram of... no in fact we'll leave it there :lol:

causton · 9 Feb 2012

Lampshade said:
Well it is known as the only town in Britain that's an anagram of... no in fact we'll leave it there

Fleeced Shirt?
Chest Defiler?
Oh wait, that's Chesterfield...

oooooooooooh! :oops:

Moog_1984 · 9 Feb 2012

It is I suppose inevitable that the real direct service to the Highland's capital via mossend is not 'economic', but most sensible in giving a London - Inv. through service- being maybe more than an hour quicker than going into either terminal given you had gone through Brum to pick up from that huge centre of population.

"economic" ??...subsidies and bail outs are fine for bankers who lost in the casino of deriviatives while rail infrastructure ?? Nah. Invade Iran next then instead. The m25 cost per inch for new lanes?

A large part of britain's GDP still goes on public spending, it just seems ever more goes to the rich.

Oliver · 9 Feb 2012

Lee_Again said:
Does it really lose money?

The up train provides a useful morning commuter service to Edinburgh

A commuter service? It arrives at 11:17. Most people have to be at work a while before that. It may be formed by at HST, but it's actually slower between Inverness and Edinburgh than trains served by 170's.

150222 · 9 Feb 2012

Why inconviniance the scots? It's a useful train and unless they are going to use the released HST for a new Todmorden to London direct service then leave it as it is!

Lee_Again · 9 Feb 2012

Oliver said:
A commuter service? It arrives at 11:17. Most people have to be at work a while before that. It may be formed by at HST, but it's actually slower between Inverness and Edinburgh than trains served by 170's.

Yes, commuter wasn't really the word I meant. More 'day-trippers'. An arrival of 11.17 and a return time of 16.30 is quite good (for EC). Scotrail would bite EC's hands off to run that service.

Why is so slow ( v Cl170). Is it pathing or slower acceleration? You seem to know the area. What would you say is the 'ultimate' fast time given perfect circumstances? Is 2h15 possible?

LE Greys · 9 Feb 2012

Lee_Again said:
Yes, commuter wasn't really the word I meant. More 'day-trippers'. An arrival of 11.17 and a return time of 16.30 is quite good (for EC). Scotrail would bite EC's hands off to run that service.

Why is so slow ( v Cl170). Is it pathing or slower acceleration? You seem to know the area. What would you say is the 'ultimate' fast time given perfect circumstances? Is 2h15 possible?

SP vs HST speed limits, IIRC.

Lee_Again · 9 Feb 2012

How about sticking two voyagers together, then splitting/joining in Edinburgh with a portion going to Inverness/Aberdeen.

34D · 9 Feb 2012

Tomnick said:
I didn't think East Coast had a traincrew depot at Inverness? I seem to remember reading somewhere that Newcastle crews work through to Inverness, lodging overnight and working back the next morning.

Believe that's right. From memory, the newcastle drivers in the inverness lodge link work something else newcastle-edinburgh (may be 1S11 the aberdeen but I've forgotten), have a break, then take 1S15 edb-inv taking 3.5 hours, thence to bed.

The bit that is really unfair is that they're in the worlds alcohol capital, away from home, and they can't have a wee dram (due to D&A).

Rhydgaled · 10 Feb 2012

tbtc said:
What real benefit does Carmarthen get from it's London service? Probably not a lot, other than ticking a box.

Three things (thanks Greenback for mentionting one I hadn't thought of):

Raised profile/awarness of destonation
Increased capacity (longest train Carmarthen gets the rest of the day is probably 3 coaches)
Better quality rolling stock (no first class, buffet car or quiet ride (underfloor diesel engines) on ATW services to CMN/Tenby/PMD)

The latter two are the reasons I thought of, and why I think IEP lossing the Pembroke Coast Express would be bad. If there was an IC125 service from Pembroke Dock to Portsmouth Harbour instead of London that wouldn't be so bad as lossing Intercity trains altogether.

HSTEd said:
Isn't this the sort of thing the collosal overorder of Bi-mode IEPs is supposed to cover?

COLLOSAL overorder. East Coast needs none in my opinion (only 3 trains per day on English diesel stations, plus 1 to Inverness and a handful to Aberdeen, just drag an electric IEP behind a 67).

On Great Western, Swansea should be electrified and Plymouth/Paignton/Penznace are too far away to serve with underfloor engined IC services, IEP is out-of-guage for Pembroke (and hence you might as well save guage clearance to Carmarthen since it will then be dropped to 1 train a day all year) and you might as well drag an electric IEP to Weston-Super-Mare. That leaves the following requirment for bi-mode:

10x 5-car units for hourly Cotswolds line services (I think that includes coupling a second unit, which could be a 5-car electric, at Oxford to make a 10-car train between Oxford and Paddington)
?x 8-car units for Paddington - Cheltenham
?x 5-car units for the semi-fast to Westbury (with Exeter extentions possibly run by bi-modes too or by the 180s removed from Cotswolds)

If you electrify Swindon-Cheltenham too IEP bi-mode is pretty much dead, yet the current plan seems to be for 26x 5-car (with no 5-car electrics to do the doubling between PAD and Oxford with) and 12x 8-car, and that's just on Great Western.

In fact they only have 11x (8-car) electric units planned for Great Western, only just enough for the Bristols so Cardiff and Oxford look like being bi-mode despite 100% under the wires.

tbtc · 10 Feb 2012

Greenback said:
The only benefit I cna see from having a direct link to London, whether it be one train a day or more, is that the decision makers, normally London based, might have a slightly higher awareness of somewhere with a direc tlink as opposed to somewhere without a direct service, or, even worse, without a railway at all!

It's a bit like having a league football team. More people are probably aware of Chesterfield from hearing its name read out in the football scores, than they are of, oh I don't know, Newark.

Apart from the slightly higher profile, the only benefit to Carmarthen is that there is plenty of room for commuters to Swansea on the 0740 morning HST! But to the towns and cities in question, the raised profile is probably worth an awful lot.

Rhydgaled said:
Three things (thanks Greenback for mentionting one I hadn't thought of):

Raised profile/awarness of destonation

Increased capacity (longest train Carmarthen gets the rest of the day is probably 3 coaches)

Better quality rolling stock (no first class, buffet car or quiet ride (underfloor diesel engines) on ATW services to CMN/Tenby/PMD)

I agree about the "better class of stock" (I've used HSTs between Fife and Edinburgh plenty times in the past rather than 158/170s, because I know I've more chance of a seat).

But the "raised profile" is hard to quantify (which makes it hard to justify). You could argue that over the past decade, post-Devolution, an improved Edinburgh service would be more important to a place like Inverness than a London service.

All depends on what the HST is replaced by. As I said on the thread about withdrawing all East Coast services beyond Edinburgh, if that means replacing an HST with a single 170 then its A Bad Thing. But if it means that Scotrail upgrade their Aberdeen/Inverness services (and fill the gaps left by East Coast) then I'd be in favour.

Maybe the question is - would Inverness be better off with (just) a daytime London service or (just) a Sleeper service?

Rhydgaled · 10 Feb 2012

tbtc said:
I agree about the "better class of stock" (I've used HSTs between Fife and Edinburgh plenty times in the past rather than 158/170s, because I know I've more chance of a seat).

But the "raised profile" is hard to quantify (which makes it hard to justify). You could argue that over the past decade, post-Devolution, an improved Edinburgh service would be more important to a place like Inverness than a London service.

All depends on what the HST is replaced by. As I said on the thread about withdrawing all East Coast services beyond Edinburgh, if that means replacing an HST with a single 170 then its A Bad Thing. But if it means that Scotrail upgrade their Aberdeen/Inverness services (and fill the gaps left by East Coast) then I'd be in favour.

Maybe the question is - would Inverness be better off with (just) a daytime London service or (just) a Sleeper service?

I'd say keep the sleeper rather than the daytime London service, BUT with the day vehicles from the sleeper (plus maybe a few more) then hitched back up behind the loco. This rake (plus similar from the Aberdeen sleeper and an extra LHCS rake or two) would then be used on services between Inverness/Aberdeen and Edinburgh (perhaps some trips between Aberdeen and Inverness, and/or extensions south to Newcastle, too) during the day, providing the quality rolling stock needed to replace the daytime direct London trains.

Pros And Cons of keeping the Highland Cheiftain

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member