Chiltern timetable - what if it wasn't about Brum-London?

[Bletchleyite]

But how is that obligation specific to Chiltern, vs the legacy WCML?

Because by then there likely won't be a "Chiltern" as a business in the sense there is now, because the Williams report appears to move away from TOCs in that sort of form.

 

[JonathanH]

Because the investors in HS2 will want the return on their investment to be as high as possible.

= Government = DfT who can direct the fares to be what they want.

But how is that obligation specific to Chiltern, vs the legacy WCML?

The treatment of Chiltern, the legacy WCML, or indeed travelling via Reading would need to all be the same.

 

[Bald Rick]

= Government = DfT who can direct the fares to be what they want.

Well I hoped people would draw that conclusion...

 

[JonathanH]

Well I hoped people would draw that conclusion...

Whilst that is true, the changes to fares across the operators need to be made now under cover of 'simplification' or 'Covid-19 response' to ensure that people don't just link it to HS2.

We have seen the 'mistake' that DfT made with harmonisation of fares on the Brighton line where they left it too late to remove the "Thameslink only" fares and then got caught up in the May 2018 problems and Southern strikes which made it impossible to remove the cheaper fares. They run the risk of the same here. Now is the opportunity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst that is true, the changes to fares across the operators need to be made now under cover of 'simplification' or 'Covid-19 response' to ensure that people don't just link it to HS2.

We have seen the 'mistake' that DfT made with harmonisation of fares on the Brighton line where they left it too late to remove the "Thameslink only" fares and then got caught up in the May 2018 problems and Southern strikes which made it impossible to remove the cheaper fares. They run the risk of the same here. Now is the opportunity.

100%

But how is that obligation specific to Chiltern, vs the legacy WCML?

It will be for both.

 

[Ianno87]

Imagine the reaction of the twittersphere when you leave people on the platform because you banned standing passengers.

No, they will be driving instead and more income is lost to the railway because it doesn't want to have upset people on twitter a handful of times per year.

Pretty unlikely to need standing passengers at all anyway, with 400m trains to fill.

 

[cle]

But presumably good value (advance?) tickets will still exist from High Wycombe and Watford Junction to Birmingham, along today's routes?

How can those not be punitive, but the differential with their 'to London' fares not invite splitting?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty unlikely to need standing passengers at all anyway, with 400m trains to fill.

That's a fair point - Avanti West Coast as it is (pre COVID) isn't known for being overcrowded, other than Friday evenings (which has been massively helped by tweaking the ticket restrictions) and Sunday afternoons. And HS2 will essentially double the capacity.

Eurostar is fairly similar - quite unusual for a train to be fully booked because they're so huge.

 

[JonathanH]

But presumably good value (advance?) tickets will still exist from High Wycombe and Watford Junction to Birmingham, along today's routes?

How can those not be punitive, but the differential with their 'to London' fares not invite splitting?

Presumably they would be scaled so as to be consistent with the fares on HS2. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the "any permitted" fares are significantly increased or for HS2 fares to be punative, just that anything cheaper is removed - it would seem appropriate for HS2, Chiltern, Avanti legacy and LNR fares to just all be the same. People are (supposedly) crying out for a simplified fare structure without the "uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company"

I think it has been discussed on this forum or another one that the cheapest tiers of advance fares are very much in the firing line of the Treasury in the light of the money being paid to keep the railway afloat. What is travelling from London to Birmingham worth on a blank sheet of paper, unclouded by the current fare levels? The walk up fares from London to Leicester or Loughborough might be a good guide, not the current fares from London to Birmingham.

This thread is about exactly what is the service needed on the Chiltern line if the fares from London to Birmingham on any of the routes were suddenly to be exactly the same, not if Chiltern was more expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

Pretty unlikely to need standing passengers at all anyway, with 400m trains to fill.

Well if we were to, for the sake of argument, have lashups of Avelia Horizons in their one-class "Ouigo" configuration, we'd have 1480 seats!

But honestly I am all for thet rains being as big as possible because whatever passenger loads seem reasonable now, we are probably going to overrun them eventually.

I tried to calc the marginal cost for a London-Birmingham return on HS2 once, and I came out with numbers like £15-20 return

 

[Techniquest]

This thread is about exactly what is the service needed on the Chiltern line if the fares from London to Birmingham on any of the routes were suddenly to be exactly the same, not if Chiltern was more expensive.

It's early morning and I've not yet finished my first coffee of the day, so apologies if I've got this wrong.

I'm reading that as suggesting London to Birmingham, whether that be on a 350 via Northampton, HS2 or via Chiltern, would be the same fare. A universal price, that means it'll cost a passenger the same to take HS2 on a premium service as it does on a crowded tiny 168 that takes far longer.

I'm not in agreement with such a proposal. The cheap LNWR fares really help to encourage travel for so many people. The amount of times I've looked to the coach operators to get me somewhere instead, because of a lack of cheap fares (normally when there's alterations due to engineering works to be fair) or a sensible routing etc, although I appreciate I'm a bit outside LNWR's usual customer base. Certainly not too many people willing to go to London via Birmingham around here, understandable given we have direct GWR services.

I am certain even post-HS2 there will always remain an option for a route-specific ticket. Via Northampton and Via High Wycombe tickets should not be banished to the history books, there's always going to be some need for such fares. Said demand may be significantly less, following the introduction of HS2, as it is far more likely Birmingham (and other passengers) to London travellers will opt for the speedy route whenever possible. I doubt every single passenger currently travelling between Birmingham and London will be able to afford such a fare each time, and for those people the cheaper fares need to remain in place.

I'm very strongly against a significant increase in fares, just in case that's not obvious

 

[Ianno87]

It's early morning and I've not yet finished my first coffee of the day, so apologies if I've got this wrong.

I'm reading that as suggesting London to Birmingham, whether that be on a 350 via Northampton, HS2 or via Chiltern, would be the same fare. A universal price, that means it'll cost a passenger the same to take HS2 on a premium service as it does on a crowded tiny 168 that takes far longer.

I'm not in agreement with such a proposal. The cheap LNWR fares really help to encourage travel for so many people. The amount of times I've looked to the coach operators to get me somewhere instead, because of a lack of cheap fares (normally when there's alterations due to engineering works to be fair) or a sensible routing etc, although I appreciate I'm a bit outside LNWR's usual customer base. Certainly not too many people willing to go to London via Birmingham around here, understandable given we have direct GWR services.

I am certain even post-HS2 there will always remain an option for a route-specific ticket. Via Northampton and Via High Wycombe tickets should not be banished to the history books, there's always going to be some need for such fares. Said demand may be significantly less, following the introduction of HS2, as it is far more likely Birmingham (and other passengers) to London travellers will opt for the speedy route whenever possible. I doubt every single passenger currently travelling between Birmingham and London will be able to afford such a fare each time, and for those people the cheaper fares need to remain in place.

I'm very strongly against a significant increase in fares, just in case that's not obvious

Passengers who want cheap fares don't actually care which way they do.

If HS2 provides the cheap fare, that's the way they'll go.

I do agree with you, the budget market should be catered for via at least one route, otherwise that's just revenue otherwise lost completely.

 

[A0]

It's early morning and I've not yet finished my first coffee of the day, so apologies if I've got this wrong.

I'm reading that as suggesting London to Birmingham, whether that be on a 350 via Northampton, HS2 or via Chiltern, would be the same fare. A universal price, that means it'll cost a passenger the same to take HS2 on a premium service as it does on a crowded tiny 168 that takes far longer.

I'm not in agreement with such a proposal. The cheap LNWR fares really help to encourage travel for so many people. The amount of times I've looked to the coach operators to get me somewhere instead, because of a lack of cheap fares (normally when there's alterations due to engineering works to be fair) or a sensible routing etc, although I appreciate I'm a bit outside LNWR's usual customer base. Certainly not too many people willing to go to London via Birmingham around here, understandable given we have direct GWR services.

I am certain even post-HS2 there will always remain an option for a route-specific ticket. Via Northampton and Via High Wycombe tickets should not be banished to the history books, there's always going to be some need for such fares. Said demand may be significantly less, following the introduction of HS2, as it is far more likely Birmingham (and other passengers) to London travellers will opt for the speedy route whenever possible. I doubt every single passenger currently travelling between Birmingham and London will be able to afford such a fare each time, and for those people the cheaper fares need to remain in place.

I'm very strongly against a significant increase in fares, just in case that's not obvious

But people looking for the 'cheapest' fares are not regular travellers - they have the flexibility to travel at certain, quieter, times and are much less time sensitive.

They also, even though they put a 'bum on a seat', don't actually contribute anything to the railway when they travel from Stoke on Trent to Euston for £ 3.50 - OK, it reduces the overall cost of the railway by using the spare capacity, but it still costs the rail network to provide this. On the flip side you've got (or at least had pre Covid) the regular 5 day a week commuters who were buying full-price season tickets of varying durations, who genuinely were travelling cattle class for a lot of money.

The question is probably how should fare simplification be done - if it's about having a 'flat / mile charge' then that's all well and good, but it's not going to work if it means the commuter traffic booms and the overcrowding on some key lines becomes more severe, though whether rail commuting returns post-Covid to its pre-Covid levels remains to be seen.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'm reading that as suggesting London to Birmingham, whether that be on a 350 via Northampton, HS2 or via Chiltern, would be the same fare. A universal price, that means it'll cost a passenger the same to take HS2 on a premium service as it does on a crowded tiny 168 that takes far longer.

I'm not in agreement with such a proposal. The cheap LNWR fares really help to encourage travel for so many people.

What worries me is the likely scenario where the only turn-up-and-go tickets are (expensive) Any Permitted SOR/SVR tickets, while the lower price-points are solely catered for by Advances, perhaps removing the very lowest prices.

So there's still a Birmingham-London return available at £25, but it's a booked-train Advance rather than a turn-up-and-go WMT Super Off-Peak.

This is not a good thing - it's removing travel flexibility. But it's the way many parts of the railway has been going and I suspect the way that DfT will favour.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm very strongly against a significant increase in fares, just in case that's not obvious

For the record, I don't like the idea of getting rid of good value fares either.

I do note that there are reasons why it might happen - eg the need to maximise revenue, Treasury pressure, recognising the true cost of travel, simplification etc.

However, I note that

a crowded tiny 168 that takes far longer

...doesn't sound like it should be the sort of thing 'cheap' fares are offered on, particularly if it is crowded.

 

[Ianno87]

What worries me is the likely scenario where the only turn-up-and-go tickets are (expensive) Any Permitted SOR/SVR tickets, while the lower price-points are solely catered for by Advances, perhaps removing the very lowest prices.

So there's still a Birmingham-London return available at £25, but it's a booked-train Advance rather than a turn-up-and-go WMT Super Off-Peak.

This is not a good thing - it's removing travel flexibility. But it's the way many parts of the railway has been going and I suspect the way that DfT will favour.

But would if "Advances" were available right up until departure (like Northern's often are from ticket machines) - it is still "walk up" in that respect, you are just fixed to the train you then get on (which you de-facto are once you are at the station anyway). The risk would just be them selling out in busy periods.

 

[Bald Rick]

But would if "Advances" were available right up until departure (like Northern's often are from ticket machines) - it is still "walk up" in that respect, you are just fixed to the train you then get on (which you de-facto are once you are at the station anyway). The risk would just be them selling out in busy periods.

Almost certainly that is what will happen, with the ability to change your train via an app, easily.

Turn up at Curzon St, decide to buy a return ticket for the next train, with a return on the 1724, nee to change your plans, change it via the app for the 1824.

 

[Ianno87]

Almost certainly that is what will happen, with the ability to change your train via an app, easily.

Turn up at Curzon St, decide to buy a return ticket for the next train, with a return on the 1724, nee to change your plans, change it via the app for the 1824.

I think many people would be surprised by, even today, how many people do not travel on traditional paper tickets, and routinely use Phone Apps and e-tickets.

 

[PauloDavesi]

For many people living in South Birmingham, & Solihull, it is quicker & easier to park at Solihull station and use Chiltern to go to London, it is is to get into New Street and go on Avanti.
Also, Marylebone is a much more convenient station in London for many people, especially as it's within walking distance of Lords.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think many people would be surprised by, even today, how many people do not travel on traditional paper tickets, and routinely use Phone Apps and e-tickets.

I think it's also worth bearing in mind that a Web forum is relatively old tech, just like paper tickets. You are therefore likely to get a significant number of people who use one old tech who also prefer another.

This is by no means deriding the Forum (proper threaded forums lead to a much higher quality of discussion than Facebook "soundbites"), but I would figure that the percentage of people under say 25 who use Web forums is going to be quite low, and the percentage of those under 25 who use paper tickets also quite low.

For many people living in South Birmingham, & Solihull, it is quicker & easier to park at Solihull station and use Chiltern to go to London, it is is to get into New Street and go on Avanti.
Also, Marylebone is a much more convenient station in London for many people, especially as it's within walking distance of Lords.

"very few people". It's poorly connected by bus and Tube compared to Euston. It's pleasant, but that doesn't make it convenient.

 

[Bald Rick]

especially as it's within walking distance of Lords.

Of all the reasons to use Marylebone, that has to be one of the weakest. And I say that as a regular attendee of the venue!

 

[paul1609]

@Ianno87 asked in the HS2 thread:



We may well find out when HS2 opens (as 4 competing TOCs might be a bit of overkill) - but what are peoples' views on what could be done and would work if the "route High Wycombe" tickets didn't exist and therefore that income wasn't a motivator?

I think Ive mentioned before that every time Ive used the Chiltern Route off peak it doesn't actually seem to carry many through passengers at all. In all honesty that's true of the Euston to Crewe via Trent Valley services as well practically a coach to myself guaranteed. Guess its because Im generally travelling north am, returning south pm but the trains in both cases would be regarded as ghost trains if south of the river.

 

[A0]

"very few people". It's poorly connected by bus and Tube compared to Euston. It's pleasant, but that doesn't make it convenient.

Marylebone to Baker Street is no worse than Euston - Euston Sq.

Or indeed the particularly circuitous route to some tube lines you get at Kings X or St Pancras despite allegedly them being part of the same station......

 

[NorthOxonian]

"very few people". It's poorly connected by bus and Tube compared to Euston. It's pleasant, but that doesn't make it convenient.

Agreed for Birmingham, but station placement does give Chiltern the edge when it comes to Oxford traffic. I don't think Paddington is that much more awkward than Marylebone, but it definitely feels like it. So if they shift to more of a focus on the Oxford route, it'll become more of a selling point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed for Birmingham, but station placement does give Chiltern the edge when it comes to Oxford traffic. I don't think Paddington is that much more awkward than Marylebone, but it definitely feels like it. So if they shift to more of a focus on the Oxford route, it'll become more of a selling point.

True.

There's also the potential of serving OOC, which I don't think we've covered on the thread?

 

[The Planner]

For many people living in South Birmingham, & Solihull, it is quicker & easier to park at Solihull station and use Chiltern to go to London, it is is to get into New Street and go on Avanti.
Also, Marylebone is a much more convenient station in London for many people, especially as it's within walking distance of Lords.

You will find there is a fair chunk of that catchment that will drive to International to do that instead of Solihull even with International costing twice as much to park. 290 spaces at Solihull vs 2100 at International.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Marylebone to Baker Street is no worse than Euston - Euston Sq.

Or indeed the particularly circuitous route to some tube lines you get at Kings X or St Pancras despite allegedly them being part of the same station......

A sight more pleasant as well. (thinking of the Euston Road) , in any case the Bakerloo line has good connections in Zone 1.

For my own views , now when I go to Oxford , - the Marylebone route is the choice , as preferred to Paddington. (no crush to and from Slough and what used to a drag walking from the H&C , which was often very busy and less frequent than the Bakerloo.)

 

[cle]

It's working if folks are dispersed across the two, according to their preferences and onward journeys. Marylebone as mentioned, has a single but good West End tube line - with Baker Street offering the City links. It's quicker from train to tube than Paddington too, and two stops closer to most things. Definitely the better option for the southern parts of the West End / South Bank - or if you need Waterloo specifically.

Paddington will definitely have the edge with Crossrail though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It's working if folks are dispersed across the two, according to their preferences and onward journeys. Marylebone as mentioned, has a single but good West End tube line - with Baker Street offering the City links. It's quicker from train to tube than Paddington too, and two stops closer to most things. Definitely the better option for the southern parts of the West End / South Bank - or if you need Waterloo specifically.

Paddington will definitely have the edge with Crossrail though.

Crossrail will definately reduce demand on the H&C / Met Lines to good effect. Game changer for those transferring off Thameslink towards Paddington or beyond. Off topic I know , but a relevant point in the big picture of terminal choice.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

A major issue with the chitern line is pathing. Due to the nature of the route you also need your fast services leaving close together at the beginning of the 30 minutes to allow stopping services to serve more local stations. An example timetable I would give would be:

Xx:00 Birmingham: Haddenham & Thame Pway, Biscester North, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick Pway, Solihull, Moor street, Snow Hill

Xx:05 Oxford: Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Haddenham & Thame Pway, Biscester Village, Oxford Pway, Oxford.

Xx:08 Gerrards Cross: Wembley stadium, Northholt park, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Gerrards Cross

Xx:12 Ayelsbury Vale Pway (via Harrow-on-the-hill) normal stopping pattern

Xx:15 Ayelsbury (via HW): West Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green and Jordans, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Saunderton, Princes Risborough, Ayelsbury.

Xx:25 Stratford upon avon: High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Haddenham & Thame Pway, Biscester North, Kings Sutton, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warrick, Warrick Pway, Hatton, Claverdon, Bearly, Wilmcote, stratford upon avon pway, stratford upon avon.

Xx:30 Oxford: High Wycombe, Haddenham & Thame Pway, Biscester Village, Oxford Pway, Oxford.

Xx:40 Birmingham: High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Haddenham and Thame Pway, Biscester North, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warrick, Warrick Pway, Lapworth, Dorridge, Solihull, moor street, snow hill (extend to kidderminster at peak)

Xx:43 Ayelsbury Vale Pway (via Harrow-on-the-hill) normal stopping pattern

Xx:47 High Wycombe: Wembley stadium, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Northolt Park, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Denham Golf club, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green and Jordans, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe.

In addition to this the Princes Risborough - Ayelsbury branch would run hourly serving all stations.

AND

Oxford to stratford upon avon service calling all stations (replaces sporadic gwr service and leamington stratford shuttle)

This timetable would provide (from London)

Ayelsbury: 3tph
High Wycombe: 6tph
Oxford: 2tph
Banbury: 3tph
Birmingham: 2tph
Stratford: 1tph
Kidderminster: Peak only.

Various station calling patterns could be ammended in the peaks for skip stop service to allow better timetabling or resilience.

This has been easily acheived by:
Binning all banbury and risborough terminators, extend them somewhere useful or free up a path. This timetable would still permit another fast oxford or birmingham service to run if you path it correctly. Spacing is about as good as you get with the 2 track nature of the line.

With improved signalling pathing would be made easier.

I think i recall that headway out of Marylebone is about 2-3 minutes so have factored this in. Trains are timetabled to almost catch up with each other but not quite to maximise capacity.