EMR fares should be lowered to levels comparable with other lines

[Trainbike46]

It’s a subsidised public transport service, which promotes economic growth by transporting people. Successive governments have decided more of its costs should be funded by its users. That isn’t the railway’s fault and, of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with that approach and use your vote accordingly.

The railway could be made completely free at the point of use, with its costs borne entirely by the taxpayer. Many taxpayers might then, quite reasonably, question why they are exclusively funding a service they never use themselves.



I suppose it all depends what you mean by reasonable! A variety of ticketing options are provided to cater for different types of customer. Want to travel at peak time with the flexibility of an open return? You’ll pay a lot more than someone more cost conscious or better organised who books an advanced ticket weeks in advance. As a taxpayer I don’t have a problem with that and I certainly don’t want the railway to turn away money unnecessarily.



I took an Uber earlier and paid approximately 50% more than normal for the journey due to high demand. I found that mildly irritating, for sure, but do I have any right to feel “ripped off” by it?

Railway ticketing is arguably too complex but it is transparent. If you rock up at peak time and feel annoyed by the price of tickets you have a choice whether or not to travel. If you choose to pay the going rate how have you been “ripped off”?



Well then, as an occasional user, presumably you’re very much in favour of putting more of the cost of the railways onto fare payers!?

I agree it is good that there is a range of tickets (anytime, off-peak, advance, seasons) to reflect different users and different price-points, and allow the railway to try and spread demand more evenly. But that's not really what this thread is about, is it? This is about how some stations along the MML have much higher prices per mile, which can be avoided by splitting. Are people from Wellingborough more willing to pay than people from Bedford, or people from places similar distances along other mainlines? Should they pay more? Why should people from Wellingborough go through splitting, but not people from Bedford? and more widely, why should split ticketing be a thing at all? I don't see how that achieves any of the many valid aims of having a range of tickets available (like yield maximisation, spreading demand, binding customers to the railway). So I don't think that difference should exist. If, as some people on this thread have suggested, (almost) everyone is already using the split at Bedford, then the loss of revenue from reducing the Wellingborough fare would be minimal. If the reduced fare attracts more passengers, it could even end up positive for the railway.

There is the unfortunate truth that many people believe the railway is really expensive, and because of that avoid using it. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes this is fully based on either media reports over fares almost no-one uses (such as the Manchester-Euston anytime open return), or a small number of personal experiences of fares they experienced as a rip-off. We do need to try do something about that perception, and I think a lot can be achieved without having to reduce fares at all, for example by advertising the many really good-value fares that exist (such as a Euston-Belfast anytime open return, or a Cambridge to london liverpool street advance). And in some cases the solution would be to remove the small number of fares that drive this perception of expensive and bad value for money. Does the anytime open return Manchester-Euston really need to exist? It could be abolished as part of a move to single-leg pricing. Another step would be to look at big differences in fares for similar journeys, and ask why these differences should exist. And if there is no good reason, look at how to fix the issue.

 

[43096]

It’s a subsidised public transport service, which promotes economic growth by transporting people. Successive governments have decided more of its costs should be funded by its users. That isn’t the railway’s fault and, of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with that approach and use your vote accordingly.

It is partly the railway's fault. The last few years - pre pandemic - have seen subsidy rising despite the number of passengers and revenue increasing, so costs are increasing faster than revenue. That is a very strong indicator of a business that has very poor financial control - you would expect that growing revenue should mean a reduction in subsidy as costs should not rise as fast. That is one reason why the industry is in such a mess, and it shows no sign of getting to grips with it itself, hence the Treasury intervention.

 

[43301]

No. I simply assume that those passengers who require the flexibility of travelling at short notice and at peak times will be prepared to pay more for the privilege. It’s quite right that the railway should recognise that commercial reality and charge them more. As per my example above - I willingly paid more for a taxi journey during a time of high demand because I had somewhere I needed to be. Why should the railway be any different?

Except it doesn't really do what you say, and hasn't for years. E.g. TPE used to (may still) sell cheap advance tickets on some of the busiest services, despite anyone who uses them knowing that they would be rammed solid with people on season or walk-up tickets. A lot of the cheap tickets have been geared around operator-specific tickets on busy flows with more than one operator - presumably because it's still more profitable to them than the splitting of full-price walk-up tickets through ORCATS.

In contrast, many trains going the opposite way to the main commuter flows will be half-empty, but are still charged at 'peak' rates.

That’s their choice. Prior to Covid the railway was getting busier and busier every year, and indeed off peak travel is now above pre Covid travel levels, and passenger numbers are rising, indicating that many people are still willing to pay the prices charged.

Or they have no practical alternative.

Again, it all depends on what you mean by “reasonable”. It’s notable that policies such as maintaining a smaller than optimum workforce, with heavy reliance on overtime to run the required service, are intended to reduce costs. Yet those practices are oft criticised on here.

There needs to be sufficient operational staff. What is not needed is the fragmented system of many operators all with their own management structure.

Perhaps you are of the view that more of the railway’s costs should be covered by general taxation. If so you can vote accordingly.

The past few years have demonstrated that voting is a waste of time as the main parties are utterly contemptible, with no interest in doing what is best for the country as a whole.

 

[cle]

If people find the train too expensive they are at liberty to use alternative transport. If they elect to pay for the train anyway, as many do, then clearly it isn’t too expensive.

"if you don't like it, pack your bags" - there really is some callousness on this thread and lack of empathy for others who don't know the ins and outs of the system.

While not free of course, it should not be exorbitant to take a last-minute rail journey. It isn't in far more affluent (and equitable) nations than ours. Not to mention encouraging growth as part of decarbonisation objectives - it should be incentivised, and yes if that means more public subsidy, I suspect it would eventually wash its face. There are plenty of other revenue streams which could be explored and expanded on too. 'The railway' is a huge land-owner, for one.

 

[Mikw]

"if you don't like it, pack your bags" - there really is some callousness on this thread and lack of empathy for others who don't know the ins and outs of the system.

While not free of course, it should not be exorbitant to take a last-minute rail journey. It isn't in far more affluent (and equitable) nations than ours. Not to mention encouraging growth as part of decarbonisation objectives - it should be incentivised, and yes if that means more public subsidy, I suspect it would eventually wash its face. There are plenty of other revenue streams which could be explored and expanded on too. 'The railway' is a huge land-owner, for one.

This is an important poiht here. We are supposed to be being encouraged to switch from the car to more efficient transport.

Supposed a group of friends decided to do that for a night in London? They've never booked a train before and just turn up on the day to buy tickets. When they are quoted a three figure price (each) they'll probably not come back again.

Yes, they could get it cheaper but that requires experience and the use of a splitting app. Not something a layperson with no experience will know.

 

[py_megapixel]

It’s a subsidised public transport service, which promotes economic growth by transporting people. Successive governments have decided more of its costs should be funded by its users. That isn’t the railway’s fault and, of course, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with that approach and use your vote accordingly.

That is a reasonable point, though I disagree with the principle of moving more of the costs of the railways to the users simply because its competitor (the roads) are not funded like this. Maybe if we start somehow charging people extra to drive at busier times, and less if they inform the highways agency of their journey 12 weeks in advance, it'll sit better with me.

The railway could be made completely free at the point of use, with its costs borne entirely by the taxpayer. Many taxpayers might then, quite reasonably, question why they are exclusively funding a service they never use themselves.

To which the answer would be simple: if it bothers you that much, go and use the railways then!
Taxes pay for all kinds of services that I don't use, but it doesn't bother me as long as they are socially/economically necessary or beneficial overall (and not aimed at making a huge profit for the ultra-rich, but that's another discussion)

I suppose it all depends what you mean by reasonable! A variety of ticketing options are provided to cater for different types of customer. Want to travel at peak time with the flexibility of an open return? You’ll pay a lot more than someone more cost conscious or better organised who books an advanced ticket weeks in advance. As a taxpayer I don’t have a problem with that and I certainly don’t want the railway to turn away money unnecessarily.

The problem I have is that you're painting everyone who doesn't book in advance as disorganised. In reality, for various reasons, unplanned yet urgent journeys do come up. Sadly, partially because the railway doesn't really cater for this (which is silly - filling one more seat in a vehicle that's already heading in the right direction surely makes more sense than adding a whole new one), a lot of people feel the need to own a car in case that happens.

I do take your point about wanting the best deal as a taxpayer (though there are plenty of other wastes of money that I personally am much more concerned about) but I remain unconvinced that extremely high flexible fares is the way to achieve that.

Railway ticketing is arguably too complex but it is transparent. If you rock up at peak time and feel annoyed by the price of tickets you have a choice whether or not to travel. If you choose to pay the going rate how have you been “ripped off”?

Maybe ripped off is the wrong term. What I really mean is "taken advantage of", as not everyone who turns up at a station ad-hoc has a choice about whether they travel.

Here's another example. I remember flying from Frankfurt airport on a day when security was short-staffed leading to long waits. Security checks take place immediately before the gate here, and for some reason they didn't call for people to go through to security until the last minute, so as soon as passengers were through security they were shepherded through to the aircraft. This meant, among other things, that everybody had their water bottles emptied out, and then had to walk straight past the water fountains in the terminal. The cabin crew realised this and lost no time in flogging bottled water at a substantial markup (as is normal for onboard refreshments). I purchased a bottle because it was a hot day and I was very thirsty, but I still felt ripped off because if the airport had been running normally I would have been able to fill my own bottle for free.

 

[AM9]

This is an important poiht here. We are supposed to be being encouraged to switch from the car to more efficient transport.

Supposed a group of friends decided to do that for a night in London? They've never booked a train before and just turn up on the day to buy tickets. When they are quoted a three figure price (each) they'll probably not come back again.

Yes, they could get it cheaper but that requires experience and the use of a splitting app. Not something a layperson with no experience will know.

Ticket splitting applications have been around for a few years now, they have been reported on TV and radio consumer programmes, promoted on consumer websites such as moneysavingexpert.com and discussed at length on social media (and not just RUK). As a consequence, knowledge of the saving from splitting is fairly widespread and quite a few traveller regularly benefit from those savings. If some travellers think they shouldn't have to do that - and don't, that is their loss. They can't be forced to do it but complaining won't change anything. If they regard the marginal cost of driving instead of a train fare suits them then that's what they will do.

 

[py_megapixel]

It's an essential l public service. It is, although I have reservations over the concept, considered to be a service whose staff are "key workers." Personally, I think it's vital to the economic and social existence of our country.

What do you think it's for? Instead of asking someone else - a poor debating tactic - you should be telling us what you think.

My view is that it should, in theory, be part of an integrated nationwide public transport network which overall provides a cost-effective and attractive competitor to car travel (subsidised as a public service where necessary).

The way it's being run at the moment seems to be as a business, but a rather inefficiently run one, with parts of it seemingly completely disconnected from other parts (e.g. annoying little policy variations between TOCs), from services it would be better complementing than competing with (e.g. almost nowhere having bus integration) and in some cases, it feels like, from reality.

 

[43301]

Ticket splitting applications have been around for a few years now, they have been reported on TV and radio consumer programmes, promoted on consumer websites such as moneysavingexpert.com and discussed at length on social media (and not just RailUK Forums). As a consequence, knowledge of the saving from splitting is fairly widespread and quite a few traveller regularly benefit from those savings. If some travellers think they shouldn't have to do that - and don't, that is their loss. They can't be forced to do it but complaining won't change anything. If they regard the marginal cost of driving instead of a train fare suits them then that's what they will do.

Ticket splitting is only a thing because of the illogical ticketing system! Some on here seem determined to claim that it's perfectly reasonable to have to work around a system which makes no logical sense at all, and for even occasional users to understand this and know how to go about it.

 

[AM9]

Ticket splitting is only a thing because of the illogical ticketing system! Some on here seem determined to claim that it's perfectly reasonable to have to work around a system which makes no logical sense at all, and for even occasional users to understand this and know how to go about it.

As I've said above - along with others, the ticketing system is what it is and there is no serious effort being made by the DfT to change it anytime soon. Of course RDG and ATOC in its time has suggested that everybody wants simpler fares, (by which they mean removing the means to avoid higher fares). The recent changes to the NRCoT are in part designed to restrict the rights of the traveller. It is naïve to assume that there will be much in the way of reductions in fares, so the only simplification will be in the removal the cheap options. Maybe you would be happy if the BDM to STP fare rose to the same cost per mile as the WEL to STP one, making the Bedford fare around £85 and changing it to an SOR? That means there would be no opportunity to gain by splitting there for WEL passengers. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[43066]

I agree it is good that there is a range of tickets (anytime, off-peak, advance, seasons) to reflect different users and different price-points, and allow the railway to try and spread demand more evenly. But that's not really what this thread is about, is it? This is about how some stations along the MML have much higher prices per mile, which can be avoided by splitting. Are people from Wellingborough more willing to pay than people from Bedford, or people from places similar distances along other mainlines? Should they pay more? Why should people from Wellingborough go through splitting, but not people from Bedford? and more widely, why should split ticketing be a thing at all? I don't see how that achieves any of the many valid aims of having a range of tickets available (like yield maximisation, spreading demand, binding customers to the railway). So I don't think that difference should exist. If, as some people on this thread have suggested, (almost) everyone is already using the split at Bedford, then the loss of revenue from reducing the Wellingborough fare would be minimal. If the reduced fare attracts more passengers, it could even end up positive for the railway.

There is the unfortunate truth that many people believe the railway is really expensive, and because of that avoid using it. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes this is fully based on either media reports over fares almost no-one uses (such as the Manchester-Euston anytime open return), or a small number of personal experiences of fares they experienced as a rip-off. We do need to try do something about that perception, and I think a lot can be achieved without having to reduce fares at all, for example by advertising the many really good-value fares that exist (such as a Euston-Belfast anytime open return, or a Cambridge to london liverpool street advance). And in some cases the solution would be to remove the small number of fares that drive this perception of expensive and bad value for money. Does the anytime open return Manchester-Euston really need to exist? It could be abolished as part of a move to single-leg pricing. Another step would be to look at big differences in fares for similar journeys, and ask why these differences should exist. And if there is no good reason, look at how to fix the issue.

I agree with much of the above. Not sure about removing the most expensive tickets based purely on perception, though. Some people will be willing to buy them!

Except it doesn't really do what you say, and hasn't for years. E.g. TPE used to (may still) sell cheap advance tickets on some of the busiest services, despite anyone who uses them knowing that they would be rammed solid with people on season or walk-up tickets.

How is that not doing what it’s intended to? Advanced purchasers are getting a much lower price and a seat reservation at the expense of some flexibility. Those buying walk up fares are paying more for the flexibility and having to stand.

Or they have no practical alternative.

In which case, to coin a phrase: you pays your money and you takes your choice.

A lot of the cheap tickets have been geared around operator-specific tickets on busy flows with more than one operator - presumably because it's still more profitable to them than the splitting of full-price walk-up tickets through ORCATS.

If it’s more profitable then why not?

There needs to be sufficient operational staff. What is not needed is the fragmented system of many operators all with their own management structure.

There are always insufficient operational staff. That has been the case forever, probably since the railway first started.

The past few years have demonstrated that voting is a waste of time as the main parties are utterly contemptible, with no interest in doing what is best for the country as a whole.

Agreed.

"if you don't like it, pack your bags" - there really is some callousness on this thread and lack of empathy for others who don't know the ins and outs of the system.

What a strange statement. Your idea of “callousness” strikes me as the railway simply recognising and responding to the commercial environment in which it exists. Nobody is being forced to use the railway. Are you in favour of denying people choice?

We are supposed to be being encouraged to switch from the car to more efficient transport.

Not by the railway you aren’t. They just want to sell you train tickets.

Supposed a group of friends decided to do that for a night in London? They've never booked a train before and just turn up on the day to buy tickets. When they are quoted a three figure price (each) they'll probably not come back again.

I doubt many people going for a night out in London choose between the train or driving.

It is partly the railway's fault. The last few years - pre pandemic - have seen subsidy rising despite the number of passengers and revenue increasing, so costs are increasing faster than revenue. That is a very strong indicator of a business that has very poor financial control - you would expect that growing revenue should mean a reduction in subsidy as costs should not rise as fast. That is one reason why the industry is in such a mess, and it shows no sign of getting to grips with it itself, hence the Treasury intervention.

Agreed in some respects. You should ask yourself how ROSCOs creaming money out of the railway like there’s no tomorrow are helping with that cost reduction you’re so concerned about .

As I've said above - along with others, the ticketing system is what it is and there is no serious effort being made by the DfT to change it anytime soon. Of course RDG and ATOC in its time has suggested that everybody wants simpler fares, (by which they mean removing the means to avoid higher fares). The recent changes to the NRCoT are in part designed to restrict the rights of the traveller. It is naïve to assume that there will be much in the way of reductions in fares, so the only simplification will be in the removal the cheap options. Maybe you would be happy if the BDM to STP fare rose to the same cost per mile as the WEL to STP one, making the Bedford fare around £85 and changing it to an SOR? That means there would be no opportunity to gain by splitting there for WEL passengers. Be careful what you wish for.

Well quite!

 

[43301]

How is that not doing what it’s intended to? Advanced purchasers are getting a much lower price and a seat reservation at the expense of some flexibility. Those buying walk up fares are paying more for the flexibility and having to stand.

Because cheap tickets were supposed to be about managing demand (i.e. that was BR's original concept). They are being used to score a few quid off rival operators, at the expense of making the travel experience worse for everyone.

In which case, to coin a phrase: you pays your money and you takes your choice.

How are you taking a 'choice' if if's the only option you have of getting from A to B?

If it’s more profitable then why not?

Because it leads to a crap experience all round, especially for those paying the most. The railways are supposed to be a public service, not a race to the bottom in the impossible pursuit of being 'profitable' (which they will never be).

Not by the railway you aren’t. They just want to sell you train tickets.

The railways do not exist in a bubble (despite the clear beliefs of many railway staff that they do) and given the amount oif government money pumped in need to form a part of national policy on various issues.

 

[AM9]

Because cheap tickets were supposed to be about managing demand (i.e. that was BR's original concept). They are being used to score a few quid off rival operators, at the expense of making the travel experience worse for everyone.

It's nearly 30 years since BR with their "original concepts" ceased to exist in terms of the operational railway. These days it is a normal dog eat dog commmercial profit seeking industry.*
*apart from the occasional examples of the DfT making poor decisions on credible bids ultimately resulting in intervention to keep services running - and of course the odd national crisis of a pandemic.

How are you taking a 'choice' if if's the only option you have of getting from A to B?

Everybody has the "choice" of using the many opportunities for split ticketing to get the sort of ticket prices that you and others here seem to be advocating for yourselves. Ignoring them is also a 'choice'.

Because it leads to a crap experience all round, especially for those paying the most. The railways are supposed to be a public service, not a race to the bottom in the impossible pursuit of being 'profitable' (which they will never be).

No, that ship sailed when the railway was privatised. The TOC operate a profit seeking business under a veneer of 'public service'.

The railways do not exist in a bubble (despite the clear beliefs of many railway staff that they do) and given the amount oif government money pumped in need to form a part of national policy on various issues.

That's a governmental issue, - it may seem to some that their vote doesn't make any difference, that might be bacause they form part of a minority so are ignored by goverments. Welcome to democracy in action!

 

[43301]

It's nearly 30 years since BR with their "original concepts" ceased to exist in terms of the operational railway. These days it is a normal dog eat dog commmercial profit seeking industry.*
*apart from the occasional examples of the DfT making poor decisions on credible bids ultimately resulting in intervention to keep services running - and of course the odd national crisis of a pandemic.


Everybody has the "choice" of using the many opportunities for split ticketing to get the sort of ticket prices that you and others here seem to be advocating for yourselves. Ignoring them is also a 'choice'.


No, that ship sailed when the railway was privatised. The TOC operate a profit seeking business under a veneer of 'public service'.

I assume you are railway staff? Very few people outside of it seem keen to defend such a broken and user-hostile system.

That's a governmental issue, - it may seem to some that their vote doesn't make any difference, that might be bacause they form part of a minority so are ignored by goverments. Welcome to democracy in action!

Not sure what your point is? It's current government policy to push green issues, which should include incentivising the use of public transport - time will tell whether they actually do that with the coming changes to the railways.

 

[AM9]

I assume you are railway staff? Very few people outside of it seem keen to defend such a broken and user-hostile system.

Nope, never have been and no relatives or close frinds either, - my only involvement in the railways is as a fare paying passenger.

Not sure what your point is? It's current government policy to push green issues, which should include incentivising the use of public transport - time will tell whether they actually do that with the coming changes to the railways.

See my responses in post #73 to your first and third comments: further to that, the Government (thanks to the current and some previous governments since privatisation), see the railway as a political inconvenience. It costs a lot to make it run, and they are in a dilemma because above all the Conservative core support is from people who regard money from general taxation supporting socially beneficial services as an anathema, but many of those voters use the railway - particularly in the south-east. The other side of the Governments policy to push green issues is that since 2011 the fuel duty escalator has been suspended. As early as 1993, the Major government introduced the fuel duty escalator with the express purpose to stem the increase in pollution from road transport and cut the need for new road building. The next Conservative government froze the duty in 2011, and has consistenly found an excuse not to reinstate it ever since. This means that in real terms, the fuel duty has been reduced by over 25% in real terms, whilst it has been estiamted that CO2 emissions from road transport has risen by 5% more than if it had kept track with inflation, (i.e. zero real increase). See here.
Transport emissions are now the greatest source of CO2 in the UK, so the "government policy to push green issues is as vacuous as the rest of it's commmitment to make railways the white knight of its green exhortations.

 

[43066]

The railways do not exist in a bubble (despite the clear beliefs of many railway staff that they do)

I assume you are railway staff?

@AM9 has rebutted your last responses very comprehensively. Why don’t you respond to the points raised rather than continually attacking railway staff?

 

[43301]

@AM9 has rebutted your last responses very comprehensively. Why don’t you respond to the points raised rather than continually attacking railway staff?

I have already addressed he points in previous posts.

 

[AM9]

I have already addressed he points in previous posts.

Apart from your assumption that I was "railway staff" defending "such a broken and user-hostile system".

 

[43066]

I have already addressed he points in previous posts.

You’ve made a series of posts which demonstrate that you don’t understand how the railway is currently structured and funded. That is a political matter and, if you disagree with it, you should vote accordingly.

 

[RT4038]

The past few years have demonstrated that voting is a waste of time as the main parties are utterly contemptible, with no interest in doing what is best for the country as a whole.

Governments will do, by and large, what their voters want them to do, rather than what is [in your opinion] best for the country as a whole. These two concepts are not necessarily the same thing.

Not sure what your point is? It's current government policy to push green issues, which should include incentivising the use of public transport - time will tell whether they actually do that with the coming changes to the railways.

It may be current government policy, but they will only push it as far as their voters allow it, which may not include spending more money incentivising the use of public transport, especially if this is at the expense of spending less money on private transport or health or increasing taxation or .......

 

[spotify95]

You don't get much 125 running . It's not 125 between all of Wellingborough and Bedford , only after Sharnbrook and Bedford. And quite often the inter city gets stuck behind a Thameslink and rarely does over 100 after Luton airport Parkway. Not much point going towards Bedford and Wellingborough either , as they get stuck behind the 360.

This could quite easily be resolved if the MML was managed better, and the recent upgrades to electrification (north of Bedford) were carried out in a more suitable manner.
To resolve being stuck behind a GTR Class 700, the 700's should be limited to the Slow lines only south of Bedford - or the electric wiring between BDM and STP should have been upgraded to 125mph capable wiring. The same 125mph capable wiring would then future proof the lines for when the 810 Aurora's come in (otherwise they'll either be speed limited, or running under diesel when it doesn't need to be), as well as allow the 360s on that stretch to hit their 110mph top speed, rather than being pegged back to 100.

Then, north of Bedford, the EMR 360s should exclusively use the Slow lines, which would free up the 222s (and occasional 180) to run at 125mph up to Wellingborough, then 110mph from there to Leicester.
Limiting Thameslink to the Slows, and then limiting the 360s to the Slows between Bedford and Kettering would make full use of the available lines and maximize the speed of the fastest running trains (so there are no bottlenecks). Then further optimisations, such as the timing of the Thameslink's (so they don't hold each other up), and the increasing of linespeed on the Slows north of Bedford, would allow the 360s to make the most of the track, whilst still not holding up a 222 or 180.

 

[cle]

Limiting Thameslink to the Slows, and then limiting the 360s to the Slows between Bedford and Kettering would make full use of the available lines and maximize the speed of the fastest running trains (so there are no bottlenecks). Then further optimisations, such as the timing of the Thameslink's (so they don't hold each other up), and the increasing of linespeed on the Slows north of Bedford, would allow the 360s to make the most of the track, whilst still not holding up a 222 or 180.

More people use Thameslink on the fasts for St Albans / Harpenden / Luton stations, than travel to the East Midlands overall.

 

[43066]

To resolve being stuck behind a GTR Class 700, the 700's should be limited to the Slow lines only south of Bedford

Much as it would speed up EMR services (assuming the EMR IC services were timed not to catch up with the Connects), limiting GTR to the slows would substantially reduce capacity of the MML overall, so there’s no way that will be happening.

Then, north of Bedford, the EMR 360s should exclusively use the Slow lines, which would free up the 222s (and occasional 180) to run at 125mph up to Wellingborough, then 110mph from there to Leicester.

And this would absolutely knacker the 360 timings as the slows are 50/70mph (including a painful 20mph stretch in the up direction) and north of Bedford is where the 360s can currently run at 110mph, so there’s no way that will be happening either!

 

[Dore & Totley]

In the before times I used EMR to get to London from Chesterfield/Sheffieldfor football on a regular basis. Since the resumption of being able to attend I am met with a flat rate fare of 84, now 87 pounds for a day return. I now get my trains from Doncaster. It's an extra 20 minutes in the car but I save nearly half the EMR fare and sometimes get first class both ways and save 3 pounds. Time will see if these flat fares will have any affect on passenger numbers, depends on price elasticity I suppose. One added bonus to Kings Cross is the much shorter walk to the Tube.

 

[spotify95]

In the before times I used EMR to get to London from Chesterfield/Sheffieldfor football on a regular basis. Since the resumption of being able to attend I am met with a flat rate fare of 84, now 87 pounds for a day return. I now get my trains from Doncaster. It's an extra 20 minutes in the car but I save nearly half the EMR fare and sometimes get first class both ways and save 3 pounds. Time will see if these flat fares will have any affect on passenger numbers, depends on price elasticity I suppose. One added bonus to Kings Cross is the much shorter walk to the Tube.

You could also get an anytime day return from Sheffield to Doncaster, saves having to drive that distance and it costs less than £10 to do it. So it would probably be cheaper than the EMR fare and you wouldn't need to drive.

Northern or TPE from Sheffield to Doncaster, than LNER from Doncaster to King's Cross. Would probably get you a better and more pleasant experience too - the EMR Intercity offering is starting to get very tired and some trains look a bit grotty, compared to the nice new 80x's on the East Coast Mainline.

 

[Dore & Totley]

You could also get an anytime day return from Sheffield to Doncaster, saves having to drive that distance and it costs less than £10 to do it. So it would probably be cheaper than the EMR fare and you wouldn't need to drive.

Northern or TPE from Sheffield to Doncaster, than LNER from Doncaster to King's Cross. Would probably get you a better and more pleasant experience too - the EMR Intercity offering is starting to get very tired and some trains look a bit grotty, compared to the nice new 80x's on the East Coast Mainline.

Cheers for that

 

[spotify95]

And this would absolutely knacker the 360 timings as the slows are 50/70mph (including a painful 20mph stretch in the up direction) and north of Bedford is where the 360s can currently run at 110mph, so there’s no way that will be happening either!

Maybe whoever relaid the lines prior to the introduction of the 360s should have thought of this - they recently wired the slow lines with OHLE, and moved the single track over to accommodate the second slow track, so when all this work was done, why on earth did they not make the slow lines 100mph capable (or at least 90mph capable, like the Wellingborough - Corby section) so that the Corby 360 services could use the Slows to Bedford, giving more line space to the Intercity services?

I have not once seen a Sheffield service approach Wellingborough (to go North) on an proceed aspect. It has always been either caution or danger - because the 360 that entered on Platform 1 (instead of Platform 3 as I suggest) hasn't left the station and cleared the track in time!
Further, now that the 360 stays on the Fast until Kettering South (instead of moving over at Wellingborough North), the Sheffield IC will catch up to it twice - once when leaving Wellingborough, and again when the 360 has to slow down for the 30mph crossing over to the Slows at Kettering South. Someone really hasn't thought this through very well at all!

The same goes for Sheffield services going southbound that are delayed, and therefore making the Corby services sit in Platform 4 for too long, waiting for the IC service to pass it. If the tracks were upgraded as suggested, the 360s wouldn't have as much of a delay (if at all) as they could proceed at line speed on the Slows, instead of waiting for a gap in the Fasts...

Also, the mind boggles as to why anyone would design a main piece of track to have a 20mph speed limit - even if it is on the Slows!

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe whoever relaid the lines prior to the introduction of the 360s should have thought of this - they recently wired the slow lines with OHLE, and moved the single track over to accommodate the second slow track, so when all this work was done, why on earth did they not make the slow lines 100mph capable (or at least 90mph capable, like the Wellingborough - Corby section) so that the Corby 360 services could use the Slows to Bedford, giving more line space to the Intercity services?

Money, practicality, freight capacity?