Hypothetical services after future modal shift to rail

[MatthewE707]

There may well have been a similar discussion to this in the past, if so, please feel free to direct me to that thread.



Background information:

I'm working on a personal project to create a timetable for the whole network, with more services in many places. I came up with this idea as I have an ambition (as I'm currently a teenager) to reverse the railway's problems with fares, reliability etc. - I realise this is probably a highly unrealistic dream but I can think about it anyway.

This is a scenario where the fares become actually affordable, and there is a resulting modal shift to rail – obviously more capacity is needed.



So, in this scenario, what extra services would be useful/necessary? In other words, what service improvements would you want to see if there were no restrictions. To make this easier (mainly for myself – I am only a teenager after all!), I will:

• Ignore freight
  
• Allow construction of new lines
  
• Allow infrastructural improvements to existing lines (e.g. double tracking lines etc.)
  
• Add new stations
  
• Ignore the limitation of the number of trains (more can always be ordered)

Obviously this is not a 100% realistic situation, but while I know a lot about the network (e.g. lines, junctions), I don't know so much about where demand is for services (or would be in this scenario)

 

[JonathanH]

So, in this scenario, what extra services would be useful/necessary?

The railway network is pretty much at capacity at a number of crunch points as it is, so extra services aren't the answer other than via HS2, NPR and local mass transit schemes, all of which isn't really affordable.

The focus on the existing network, where possible, should be longer trains, not more, which still needs investment, but isn't as exciting to people as new services.

There are often threads where users post that schemes like HS2 (if it had been built in full) actually make railway operation more affordable because of much higher utilisation of rolling stock, infrastructure and traincrew.
 

 

[MatthewE707]

Yes, absolutely there is little space for new services on the network as it is. However, this is a hypothetical situation where there is unlimited money, so those crunch points could be removed, by grade-separating a junction, for example.

 

[brad465]

The "Low hanging fruit" for new lines and/or increased track count would be to reverse all the Beeching Cuts where no major development on old trackbed exists. Most single lines that were built as double could be redoubled, although where track was slewed to the centre the job will be more complex, while the 1066 line would either to have to retain single track tunnels or have all the tunnels re-dug.

As well as ordering new trains, there would also have to be more depot/stabling capacity built. Pre-Beeching almost every station had at least a siding/yard; a massive expansion of railway traffic would lead to as much of this space as possible being reinstated, and/or new land taken over purposely for this.

 

[JonathanH]

However, this is a hypothetical situation where there is unlimited money, so those crunch points could be removed, by grade-separating a junction, for example.

In which case, you build new lines like HS2 to take the trunk journeys off the main lines and allow the existing routes to be used for a lot more local travel, because that is what most car journeys are.

With unlimited money, you build new metro systems for local journeys as well.

For example, if you could build a new fast route from Liverpool to Manchester through Widnes and Warrington, the new service you run on the route through Warrington Central is a frequent Metrolink extension.

 

[Bald Rick]

First thing is to look at where the demand will be,

For example there is simply no point redoubling a branch line in, say, Suffolk if the increased demand is going to be on main lines into city centres.

In any event, as @JonathanH says: Generally, by far the best ‘bang per buck’ available on the network is longer trains rather than more frequent services. In most cases “all“ this needs is longer platforms, longer depots and stabling sidings, and the associated works that go with that. No need for new lines. But imagine if, say, all crosscountry services were 200metre long trains, all commuter trains on the commuter lines into New St were 8 coaches long, etc.

If you want your study to have a sense of realism, start here.

If on the other hand you want it to be an exercise in fantasy that will never see the light of day, load your crayons and knock yourself out.

 

[rapmastaj]

To assess demand, I'd start with existing station-to-station passenger flows, but also identify the origin-destination pairs with high potential that don't show up in these stats because they are currently unserved or poorly served by existing rail networks.

You could use a simple gravity model based on population and distance to estimate potential flows. Though demand won't always follow these patterns neatly - an area may tend to 'look to' a certain city due to reasons of history / topography, while having much weaker links with another equally close city.

To get a much more accurate picture of commuter demand, you can use census data on travel to work, which gives both origins and destinations to high spatial resolution (e.g. Lower Super Output Areas, which each have a population of around 1500 people). Unfortunately the 2021 census was conducted during a period of travel restrictions when many were working from home, so it's debatable whether you're best off using this or the 2011 census.

Of course, commuting only accounts for around 20% of total trips (although it's a higher percentage of trips long enough to be worth taking by train). You should then consider trips for other purposes such as business travel, leisure, shopping, travel to school, etc. Getting data here is much trickier than for commuting.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Well you’d probably want a minimum 6tph of all lines in London and a massively enchanced Cross Country service. Plus 4tph on suburban routes in English cities.

If you want it to be fantastical, I’d throw in a cross London freight tunnel so overground services can be increased.

 

[rapmastaj]

For a broadly similar approach modelling future cycling demand under scenarios of modal shift to cycling, check out the Propensity to Cycle Tool in England and Wales and the Network Planning Tool in Scotland.

Welcome to the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT)

www.pct.bike

NPT Scotland

Network Planning Tool for Scotland: A web application for strategic cycle network planning across Scotland

www.npt.scot

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 23:19 ==

Well you’d probably want a minimum 6tph of all lines in London and a massively enchanced Cross Country service. Plus 4tph on suburban routes in English cities.

This seems pretty sensible. And any less-built-up areas that can be easily served within these high frequency suburban rail networks will be ripe for new homes.

 

[The Planner]

The "Low hanging fruit" for new lines and/or increased track count would be to reverse all the Beeching Cuts where no major development on old trackbed exists. Most single lines that were built as double could be redoubled, although where track was slewed to the centre the job will be more complex, while the 1066 line would either to have to retain single track tunnels or have all the tunnels re-dug.

As well as ordering new trains, there would also have to be more depot/stabling capacity built. Pre-Beeching almost every station had at least a siding/yard; a massive expansion of railway traffic would lead to as much of this space as possible being reinstated, and/or new land taken over purposely for this.

Why all cuts? Just because a railway was built and closed, doesn't mean its useful now.

 

[stuu]

The "Low hanging fruit" for new lines and/or increased track count would be to reverse all the Beeching Cuts where no major development on old trackbed exists.

I would suggest that any places where there had been no development for 60 years probably don't need a railway

 

[MikeFromLFE]

With unlimited money, you build new metro systems for local journeys as well.

With unlimited money then my bet would be on an extensive system of interurban tramway style systems covering much of the Midlands, North, Southern England and the Scottish Central Belt.
This would reduce pressure on the congested heavy rail routes, increase capacity for freight (I know you are disregarding this), and put reliable, modern transport where new communities have grown up with poor / limited public transport, and at the same time ahve the option of restoring rail links where they would be valuable.
As I you say 'Unlimited Money' (and thick crayons)

 

[quantinghome]

There may well have been a similar discussion to this in the past, if so, please feel free to direct me to that thread.



Background information:

I'm working on a personal project to create a timetable for the whole network, with more services in many places. I came up with this idea as I have an ambition (as I'm currently a teenager) to reverse the railway's problems with fares, reliability etc. - I realise this is probably a highly unrealistic dream but I can think about it anyway.

This is a scenario where the fares become actually affordable, and there is a resulting modal shift to rail – obviously more capacity is needed.



So, in this scenario, what extra services would be useful/necessary? In other words, what service improvements would you want to see if there were no restrictions. To make this easier (mainly for myself – I am only a teenager after all!), I will:

• Ignore freight
  
• Allow construction of new lines
  
• Allow infrastructural improvements to existing lines (e.g. double tracking lines etc.)
  
• Add new stations
  
• Ignore the limitation of the number of trains (more can always be ordered)

Obviously this is not a 100% realistic situation, but while I know a lot about the network (e.g. lines, junctions), I don't know so much about where demand is for services (or would be in this scenario)

Just to reinforce what others have said, the key issue is capacity, and to get that you need to separate different speed traffic - so new lines dedicated for intercity trains, which then allows the existing network to run high frequency (min. 4tph) commuter and regional services. Basically a frequency where passengers don't really have to think about a timetable.

As for genuinely new services, it's probably worth taking a look at what regions don't have direct connections - Yorkshire to South Wales for example; there are quite a lot of others. I'd also consider things like an orbital route around London. The aim is to target where there's significant demand.

Reinstating closed lines is not generally a good idea as they are mostly in areas with low demand (hence why they closed). But there are exceptions such as Oxford-Cambridge, which is in the process of being reopened.

 

[Brubulus]

Just to reinforce what others have said, the key issue is capacity, and to get that you need to separate different speed traffic - so new lines dedicated for intercity trains, which then allows the existing network to run high frequency (min. 4tph) commuter and regional services. Basically a frequency where passengers don't really have to think about a timetable.

As for genuinely new services, it's probably worth taking a look at what regions don't have direct connections - Yorkshire to South Wales for example; there are quite a lot of others. I'd also consider things like an orbital route around London. The aim is to target where there's significant demand.

Reinstating closed lines is not generally a good idea as they are mostly in areas with low demand (hence why they closed). But there are exceptions such as Oxford-Cambridge, which is in the process of being reopened.

A relatively easy addition to the XC network would be to reroute the Cardiff-Nottingham to Leeds. This would then enable 2tph to run between Birmingham and Leeds alongside providing a link between Wales and Yorkshire.

A closed line which should be reopened and would see substantial demand from doing so is the Shelford-Haverhill section of the Stour Valley line. It was a mistake to close it in the first place with the substantial development at Haverhill, but with Cambridge, Sawston, Granta Park and the Babraham Research Campus near it's route it would be a no-brainer to reopen, however I think it should probably be a light rail route, since that would enable re-use of the southern busway and a much higher frequency service than could be provided by heavy rail.

 

[BayPaul]

If HS2 was being built in full, I think there would be a real opportunity to redesign the network to achieve this sort of capacity increase and modal shift.
A full HS2, with capacity for around 20tph plus upgrades /bypasses towards Scotland, connection to Liverpool and a new short HS line from Curzon Street to around Bromsgrove would allow pretty much every intercity train to be removed off the existing network, both on the main lines, and on the congested infrastructure around busy stations.

Imagine the kind of metro service that could be run in Birmingham, for example, if there were no intercity trains using New Street or any of the existing lines around. 6tph metro services, plus semi-fast high capacity trains out towards Hereford, Northampton, Cheltenham, Stoke etc.

 

[Magdalia]

This is a scenario where the fares become actually affordable, and there is a resulting modal shift to rail – obviously more capacity is needed.

If you want to encourage modal shift, then the starting point is the traffic flows that already exist but use other modes. Are you seeking modal shift from planes, coaches or cars, and on what routes?

• 
  
• Allow construction of new lines
• Allow infrastructural improvements to existing lines (e.g. double tracking lines etc.)
• Add new stations
• Ignore the limitation of the number of trains (more can always be ordered)

All of these cost money, both the capital cost and ongoing costs, especially staff. It doesn't follow that what you propose will lead to cheaper fares. Revenue may increase, but costs will increase too.

It is also important to be aware that demand is not static, it is dynamic. A more realistic approach might be to identify and try to capture new flows, for example:

• the government is planning to build 1.5 million new homes: where will they be, and will the people who live there be travelling by train?
• economic growth creates new commuting flows, for example here in the Cambridge area: where will the workers live, and will they use the train to get to and from work?
• new destinations are not just about work, for example the proposed Universal Theme Park near Bedford: where will the visitors be coming from, and will they arrive by train?

There is an interesting example, close to where you live, where there are opportunities both for modal shift and capturing new traffic, and that's Stansted Airport.

 

[Harpers Tate]

If you want to encourage modal shift, then the starting point is the traffic flows that already exist....

Exactly. This is a "trick" that I think transport planners seem to miss - at least some of the time. They want to assess this based on what they are presently doing, rather than what they could (or should) be doing. It's even suggested up thread that "existing station-to-station passenger flows" are a starting point. That's misleading in the context of the question; such flows are determied (probably to a major degree) by what is presently provided.

As a total abstract exercise one might
- have a map of the area you are considering (the whole country if you like)
- anonymise it so that place names aren't present
- colour code it (or other indication - circles of varying size; something) to indicate population centres and places of work, leisure and the like and/or census output about the journeys people make (by any means including cars)
- invert and laterally reverse it so that it becomes less recognisable (so as to avoid as far as possible any bias from known existing content)
- design a network of transport solutions to provide for what is now on the map
- and then take that diagram, invert and laterally reverse it and replace the placenames.

That's your ideal new network. And it's probably quite different to what we presently have.

 

[eldomtom2]

I think a key area of analysis should be frequency. Many lines serving major urban areas do not have turn-up-and-go frequencies. Lack of frequency is almost certainly inhibiting passenger growth to a significant extent. Examining how frequency can be increased with the minimum of expensive infrastructure upgrades is important. Comparison with other countries to see how they manage high-frequency lines would be useful.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Out of the box thinking I would start modal shift with freight not passengers.

 

[Northumbriana]

With unlimited money then my bet would be on an extensive system of interurban tramway style systems covering much of the Midlands, North, Southern England and the Scottish Central Belt.
This would reduce pressure on the congested heavy rail routes, increase capacity for freight (I know you are disregarding this), and put reliable, modern transport where new communities have grown up with poor / limited public transport, and at the same time ahve the option of restoring rail links where they would be valuable.
As I you say 'Unlimited Money' (and thick crayons)

I'd like to see some sort of inter urban tram-train alongside the ECML from Durham to Morpeth. What it lacked in speed it'd make up for in connections that are severely lacking right now. Extra tracks alongside the ECML where possible, street running into town centres when needed.

 

[SynthD]

anonymise it so that place names aren't present

Without context you might form strange answers. Towns along an existing route, or motorway, require far higher capacity than the perpendicular. Eg north-south versus east-west at Bedford and Cambridge show the demand, not the bias.

 

[The Ham]

The sort of things which I'd look at:
- lengthen XC services without increasing the total number of coaches*
- look at locations with large populations but with capacity constraints to going towards London and see if there's options to join up lines to create new direct station pairings as well as potentially increasing frequencies*2
- look at what capacity can be created from the released platform capacity from building HS2

None of which would be a significant cost (either to deliver or operate), but could create a lot of capacity improvements, creating modal shift.


* By converting the 22x fleet to 43 trains of 6 coaches and then giving it 80x trains (9 coaches) to replace the end coaches scrapped
*2 For example Farnborough Basingstoke has 4 tracks but limited number of services - if there was a grade separated junction at Frimley you could run 2tph Ascot - Basingstoke (with batteries possibly Andover) increases frequency between Basingstoke and Farnborough, creates new station pairs, including the stations either side of Basingstoke which are difficult to get between with the current service patterns. It could also allow new stations to delivered which otherwise would allow down London services.

 

[eldomtom2]

The sort of things which I'd look at:
- lengthen XC services without increasing the total number of coaches*
- look at locations with large populations but with capacity constraints to going towards London and see if there's options to join up lines to create new direct station pairings as well as potentially increasing frequencies*2
- look at what capacity can be created from the released platform capacity from building HS2

None of which would be a significant cost (either to deliver or operate), but could create a lot of capacity improvements, creating modal shift.

If you're focusing on modal shift overall I think you get better results by focusing on suburban services - i.e. those that people will use on a daily basis. And that probably means frequency increases.

 

[The Ham]

If you're focusing on modal shift overall I think you get better results by focusing on suburban services - i.e. those that people will use on a daily basis. And that probably means frequency increases.

The issue is that the main desire points are already congested, so either that's new lines (probably across cities at great expense), or looking where you've got lines with some capacity but need a junction between them, or longer trains.

The first I've skipped over due to the cost, the other two are easier.

In the example I gave of Farnborough, the Aldershot Urban area has a population of circa 1/4 million, Basingstoke has a further 100k, as such the possibility of reasonable numbers of passengers.

Farnborough Main already had (pre COVID) full and standing trains arriving in the morning, in part due to college and private school students, but not entirely.

As I also said, Andover to Fleet or Salisbury to Farnborough isn't fast due to having to change at Basingstoke, whilst it's not going to be lots and lots by running the service through Basingstoke station (rather than terminating) it means you don't tie up platform space (and so don't necessarily have to look at junction improvements).

 

[eldomtom2]

The issue is that the main desire points are already congested, so either that's new lines (probably across cities at great expense), or looking where you've got lines with some capacity but need a junction between them, or longer trains.

Are there no places where existing suburban services could have their frequency increased without building entire new lines? I've often felt there's a case to be made for looking at practices in other countries and seeing if they get more frequency out of their infrastructure than we do. Japan in particular manages to get very high frequencies out of double-track lines with the minimum of terminal platforms.

 

[JLH4AC]

The "Low hanging fruit" for new lines and/or increased track count would be to reverse all the Beeching Cuts where no major development on old trackbed exists. Most single lines that were built as double could be redoubled, although where track was slewed to the centre the job will be more complex, while the 1066 line would either to have to retain single track tunnels or have all the tunnels re-dug.

Simply reversing the Beeching Cuts is a bad idea as while there are closed lines that should be reopened there are also lines that should not be reopened as they unnecessarily duplicate other lines, are too uneconomic, demand no longer exist, or a new route is better suited for the modern era. The needs of the local area should be the starting point for a new/restored line, not whether there was once a railway there.

I would suggest that any places where there had been no development for 60 years probably don't need a railway

Former railway land not being developed does not mean development is not happening in the larger area, there are many reasons why the railway trackbed may remain undeveloped, including but not limited to it being used as a walking path, the land being unsuitable size for the development taking place in the area, and ownership issues. Another point to note is that poor transport links often hold back development.

 

[Brubulus]

Simply reversing the Beeching Cuts is a bad idea as while there are closed lines that should be reopened there are also lines that should not be reopened as they unnecessarily duplicate other lines, are too uneconomic, demand no longer exist, or a new route is better suited for the modern era. The needs of the local area should be the starting point for a new/restored line, not whether there was once a railway there.

Former railway land not being developed does not mean development is not happening in the larger area, there are many reasons why the railway trackbed may remain undeveloped, including but not limited to it being used as a walking path, the land being unsuitable size for the development taking place in the area, and ownership issues. Another point to note is that poor transport links often hold back development.

I would agree here, however closed railways are usually good routes for transport corridors, but there should always be a focus on improving links, not immediately defaulting to "re-opening the railway!" However some do advocate for a status quo of a slightly improved bus service and this doesn't do much.

Secondly, if you are going to run a public transport route down a rail corridor, it should probably be a railway based solution, since busways generally have not been particularly successful.

Best way of achieving modal shift is to gain rail commuters, they will use the railway 500 times a year, much better than occasional leisure users. Rail commuters can be gained by providing frequent reliable transport between where people live and work, and ensuring commutes are by public transport where possible should play a stronger role in planning, hopefully with the New Towns coming with substantial rail improvements, unlike those of the 1960s which had their railways closed as construction started, often "to prevent them going back to London/Liverpool" and out of a misguided desire to provide both living and working in the same town.

 

[brad465]

First thing is to look at where the demand will be,

For example there is simply no point redoubling a branch line in, say, Suffolk if the increased demand is going to be on main lines into city centres.

In any event, as @JonathanH says: Generally, by far the best ‘bang per buck’ available on the network is longer trains rather than more frequent services. In most cases “all“ this needs is longer platforms, longer depots and stabling sidings, and the associated works that go with that. No need for new lines. But imagine if, say, all crosscountry services were 200metre long trains, all commuter trains on the commuter lines into New St were 8 coaches long, etc.

Stop all railtours and get all their LHCS into mainline passenger service, then you've got several extra 12-car rakes. I mean sure H&S and PRM might be an issue but I'm sure there's a work around

 

[Dr Hoo]

Best way of achieving modal shift is to gain rail commuters, they will use the railway 500 times a year, much better than occasional leisure users. Rail commuters can be gained by providing frequent reliable transport between where people live and work, and ensuring commutes are by public transport where possible should play a stronger role in planning, hopefully with the New Towns coming with substantial rail improvements, unlike those of the 1960s which had their railways closed as construction started, often "to prevent them going back to London/Liverpool" and out of a misguided desire to provide both living and working in the same town.

I agree that '5-day' commuters can provide a steady cash flow rather than leisure/tourism demand that can vary with weather, time of year, exchange rates and so on. Nevertheless, I still feel that long distance 5-day commuting is unlikely to return with many 'white collar'/profesional jobs lending themselves to forms of remote working, let alone shifting to 'off peak' ticketing of one sort or another. Heck, I was paying over £6,000 per year when I retired back in 2014 and that was with no London Travelcard/Underground. Nevertheless, there will still be scope for many face-to-face roles in retailing or hospitality to commute over more modest distances, even at lower salaries, given high housing costs in many large centres - Cambridge being the most commonly-quoted example. Hence I agree that building up links and capacity in non-metropolitan conurbations is worth exploring - Reading, Guildford, Brighton, Exeter, etc. (no particular southern bias intended there; I'm sure that places such as Swansea and Teesside may have similar potential but I am less familiar with them).

 

[eldomtom2]

I agree that '5-day' commuters can provide a steady cash flow rather than leisure/tourism demand that can vary with weather, time of year, exchange rates and so on. Nevertheless, I still feel that long distance 5-day commuting is unlikely to return with many 'white collar'/profesional jobs lending themselves to forms of remote working, let alone shifting to 'off peak' ticketing of one sort or another. Heck, I was paying over £6,000 per year when I retired back in 2014 and that was with no London Travelcard/Underground. Nevertheless, there will still be scope for many face-to-face roles in retailing or hospitality to commute over more modest distances, even at lower salaries, given high housing costs in many large centres - Cambridge being the most commonly-quoted example. Hence I agree that building up links and capacity in non-metropolitan conurbations is worth exploring - Reading, Guildford, Brighton, Exeter, etc. (no particular southern bias intended there; I'm sure that places such as Swansea and Teesside may have similar potential but I am less familiar with them).

The sort of service useful for commuting to work is also, if frequent enough throughout the day, the sort of service useful for school pupils, people going shopping, people having a night out, etc. - exactly the sort of daily traffic that needs to be captured if you want modal shift.