If the lines between TOCs and rolling stock become blurry

[Metal_gee_man]

We complain that fixed routes don't fit our various travelling patterns, East - West rail travel is abysmal with multiple changes and waits required. Extra Tph are needed to midlands towns and cities etc...etc...etc...

I put this out there, as a discussion piece about how well some people/towns have it and how well others don't because of underinvestment, locational bias and the fact the current TOC system doesn't create a fair playing field

So if TOCs and franchises disappear, the rolling stock becomes leased to the DaFT what is stopping sensible usage of multiple London termini for example sending a 802 up the ECML to Grantham, across to Nottingham and back south via Leicester down the MML into St Pancras. The reverse service from St Pancras could work similarly back to Kings Cross.
Similar things could work post HS2 using Euston up the WCML via Stoke on Trent via Derby Via Sheffield back down the ECML
Or WCML to Manchester across to Leeds and return south on the ECML.

This is very crayonista I know that but north/south and east/west need a better solution than the existing setup.

We need more joined up thinking and less departmentalisation of individual routes for the greater good of passengers.

I haven't worked out if there are enough Bi-modes, enough money to electrify some or all of these routes, whether a 10 car 802 will fit into St Pancras or SDO for short platforms, depots facilities, driver knowledge etc...
But some joined up thinking is all I hope for when potentially we could see a return of something that resembles British Rail.

Tell me I'm wrong (I'm ready to be shot down), but opening up better connections, more tph to under served locations and better social mobility to aid the economy has got to be more important than keeping the status quo and our broken system

 

[JonathanH]

So if TOCs and franchises disappear, the rolling stock becomes leased to the DaFT what is stopping sensible usage of multiple London termini for example sending a 802 up the ECML to Grantham, across to Nottingham and back south via Leicester down the MML into St Pancras. The reverse service from St Pancras could work similarly back to Kings Cross.
Similar things could work post HS2 using Euston up the WCML via Stoke on Trent via Derby Via Sheffield back down the ECML
Or WCML to Manchester across to Leeds and return south on the ECML.

I think you have to consider the likely demand and whether it supports that sort of operation.

Let's suppose that availability of rolling stock is not an issue - would you really run London - Manchester - Leeds - London? Is there really a flow from Stoke and Macclesfield to Leeds that is greater than, say, the flow from Liverpool to Leeds. London to Manchester and London to Leeds can support long trains at frequent intervals but does Manchester to Leeds support the same capacity need?

What flow does London - Nottingham - Grantham - London enable that isn't currently offered? Are there a lot of people who want to get from Leicester to Grantham?

I'm not sure I get the point of this?

We need more joined up thinking and less departmentalisation of individual routes for the greater good of passengers.

But some joined up thinking is all I hope for when potentially we could see a return of something that resembles British Rail.

Do we? There will always be 'borders' between routes. Even British Rail had this. There is only so much capacity to link up routes and some passengers have to change trains to make their journeys. Are you saying that if trains run from A to B and C to D via X, all combinations of A, B, C and D should have direct trains between them instead of passengers interchanging at X?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Do we? There will always be 'borders' between routes. Even British Rail had this. There is only so much capacity to link up routes and some passengers have to change trains to make their journeys. Are you saying that if trains run from A to B and C to D via X, all combinations of A, B, C and D should have direct trains between them instead of passengers interchanging at X?

Having seen some of the convoluted journeys 3 change journeys some people are forced to make to travel 50 miles by rail or road that takes an hour by road or 2 and half hours by rails because one TOC doesn't interchange with another.
I mention Nottingham as a hugely underserved location, so are Leicester and Derby, Nottingham has over 1m in population but has 2tph to London so connecting Peterborough to Nottingham would be a game changer via the ECML or upto Peterborough via Oakham to Derby to Birmingham and back south connecting places like Derby to Northampton.

These are purely a suggestion, these will also prove smart when it comes down to dwell times at termini, the train is give or take a few minutes always moving using the rolling stock better. These would be intercity journeys the existing stopping local services would still run to fill the gaps.

Capacity will always be up for debate, but I feel circular route provide the best use of trains

 

[JonathanH]

I mention Nottingham as a hugely underserved location, so are Leicester and Derby Nottingham has over 1m in population but has 2tph to London so connecting Peterborough to Nottingham would be a game changer via the ECML or upto Peterborough via Oakham to Derby to Birmingham and back south connecting places like Derby to Northampton.

Peterborough to Nottingham already has an hourly service run with a 2-car unit, which might illustrate the demand. If you run Nottingham - Grantham - London, maybe you lose the Norwich service.

Running from Derby to Northampton requires a reversal. Peterborough to Derby might yet happen via Nottingham as an alternative destination for the Norwich service.

There is always going to be an element of matching rolling stock to demand and running operationally convenient routes. It is just how it is. If demand increases for a particular set of destinations to be linked, it would happen but my guess is that travel patterns are fairly well known by those with the power to plan networks strategically.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

So you don't subscribe to the build it and they will come thought! People drive because the train service is abysmal, give a similar journey time by train they'll come if its not a 156 and 153 chugging along at 75mph maximum

 

[JonathanH]

So you don't subscribe to the build it and they will come thought! People drive because the train service is abysmal, give a similar journey time by train they'll come if its not a 156 and 153 chugging along at 75mph maximum

The line speed between Grantham and Nottingham is no more than 75 mph so whatever runs between Peterborough and Nottingham it won't be going any quicker west of Grantham.

I subscribe to keeping the operation of through trains on the network as simple as possible and not avoiding places where there is an established market - as a case in point, if a second train ran on the line through Oakham, is it better to have a half hourly service from Peterborough to Leicester or an hourly service from Peterborough to Leicester and an hourly service from Peterborough to Derby? Are you suggesting it would be more natural to have the Leicester / Derby mix?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

The line speed between Grantham and Nottingham is no more than 75 mph so whatever runs between Peterborough and Nottingham it won't be going any quicker west of Grantham.

I subscribe to keeping the operation of through trains on the network as simple as possible and not avoiding places where there is an established market - as a case in point, if a second train ran on the line through Oakham, is it better to have a half hourly service from Peterborough to Leicester or an hourly service from Peterborough to Leicester and an hourly service from Peterborough to Derby? Are you suggesting it would be more natural to have the Leicester / Derby mix?

Yes, no, kind of! Anything that provides a better through service with more regularity is better than nothing.

 

[zwk500]

So you don't subscribe to the build it and they will come thought!

People won't make new journeys by rail just because the rail line has been built (or service introduced). Even bashers will only ride it until they've bagged what they're after from it. New routes are introduced and lines built because the demand for them exists already but is not satisfied.

Yes, no, kind of! Anything that provides a better through service with more regularity is better than nothing.

If we take your KX-Nottingham-STP service, a delay at Peterborough would cause delays to STP-Derby services. And delay at Leicester would cause delays to KX-Doncaster trains. Both sets of passengers would be somewhat miffed to discover that the cause of the delay is originally on a completely separate radial route from London! It is a better service overall to ask a small contingent of passengers to change trains so that the heaviest flows can continue to have separate through trains.
One last question: Is it better or worse for passengers to know that all services from London to Nottingham leave from St Pancras, or to have to constantly check their apps and run between KGX and STP to try and work out which is faster?

These are purely a suggestion, these will also prove smart when it comes down to dwell times at termini, the train is give or take a few minutes always moving using the rolling stock better. These would be intercity journeys the existing stopping local services would still run to fill the gaps.

Related to my above point, taking dwell down at the termini to 3/4 minutes reduces the opportunity to recover delay. You would end up with sets on the wrong side of London, and Crews out of position up and down 2 main lines.

Capacity will always be up for debate, but I feel circular route provide the best use of trains

A circular route may provide the best use of the units, but that's effectively pointless if it provides a worse overall service to passengers. You can't make best use of a unit if it's sat at signals waiting for a path!

We need more joined up thinking and less departmentalisation of individual routes for the greater good of passengers.

When LNWR tried to extend Birmingham suburban services through to Euston it didn't go particularly well. Many routes have been interleaved, but using the central operating strategy of a single central 'core' and multiple branches at each end to distribute the frequency. With one or two exceptions (mainly because of georgraphy) out-and-back circulars are the exclusive domain of inner-city commuter lines. And, contrary to popular belief, the railway *does* have good reasons for doing what it does.

I haven't worked out if there are enough Bi-modes, enough money to electrify some or all of these routes, whether a 10 car 802 will fit into St Pancras or SDO for short platforms, depots facilities, driver knowledge etc...
But some joined up thinking is all I hope for when potentially we could see a return of something that resembles British Rail.

It's worth mentioning that maximum usage of a unit is of less importance than maximum usage of staff hours, as a unit costs less when idle than a staff member on duty but not active. As it's a lot harder to design driver's shifts because of things like working hours, breaks, route knowledge, and drivers want to get home at some point, most companies will take having units utilised at a worse rate if it means they can utilise far more of the driver's time. Having said that, WCML and ECML units regularly cover more than 1,000 miles per day. Arguably the best thing BR did was to 'departmentalise' individual routes into its Sectors in the 80s.

What the network could really do with is guaranteed advertised connections, and much better regional connectivity services between major radial routes (e.g. EWR).

 

[Metal_gee_man]

People won't make new journeys by rail just because the rail line has been built (or service introduced). Even bashers will only ride it until they've bagged what they're after from it. New routes are introduced and lines built because the demand for them exists already but is not satisfied.

So when faster trains from the Kent coast began using HS1 it was a case of build it and they'll come, previously a 1h20 - 2h car journey matched the train journey from Kent to London, immediately when that train journey was sped up to 55m from Dover or 35m from Ashford the train was the only option, it became a victim of its own success.

 

[JonathanH]

So when faster trains from the Kent coast began using HS1 it was a case of build it and they'll come, previously a 1h20 - 2h car journey matched the train journey from Kent to London, immediately when that train journey was sped up to 55m from Dover or 35m from Ashford the train was the only option, it became a victim of its own success.

There is quite a bit of difference between that circumstance, where something genuinely new was offered, and running through trains at existing speeds from Oakham to Birmingham via Derby.

Let's suppose you could divert one of the half-hourly Leeds to London trains to Cambridge and run the Birmingham to Stansted train into Kings Cross direct from Peterboroug. Prior to Covid-19, it was broadly possible to fill a 9-car train between London and Leeds. That doesn't mean you would fill a 9-car train between Cambridge and Leeds or indeed the Birmingham to London via Peterborough service. It is set up the way it is for a reason.

 

[zwk500]

So when faster trains from the Kent coast began using HS1 it was a case of build it and they'll come, previously a 1h20 - 2h car journey matched the train journey from Kent to London, immediately when that train journey was sped up to 55m from Dover or 35m from Ashford the train was the only option, it became a victim of its own success.

I refer back to my previous post:

New routes are introduced and lines built because the demand for them exists already but is not satisfied.

Quite clearly, demand already existed for journeys to London. The service rail was offering could not satisfy this demand. So they ran a service that could (the line was built entirely on the projected continental traffic). Even if these are all additional journeys (which I doubt, there was a fair amount of transfer between service) it wasn't 'build it and they will come' but 'build what people are crying out for'.

There is a case for extending certain ex-London trains to connect with an adjacent radial route. StP-Nottingham could extend to Grantham, and StP-Sheffield could extend to Manchester. You might extend the first and last Euston-Manchester each Mon-Fri to Leeds, perhaps. In fact, EMR do this with Sheffield extending to Leeds and York already. But for the majority of the corridors you mention, there just isn't the demand (active, latent or suppressed) for a genuine inter-city service. Rather than a wholesale re-write of the entire national timetable (which is what it would need), you'd do better to lengthen EMR, TPE and XC East-West services that are 2/3 cars to 4-6 cars and do some targeted interventions to get linespeed up to 100mph and average speeds up above 70mph. Possibly run a local all-stations to allow the longer-distance services to drop a couple of the smaller stops to speed up the journey.

 

[SynthD]

This would introduce delay pollution between the termini. What’s the advantage? Someone gets on the normal Kings Cross to York train at Stevenage and now they can get to Bedford without going to St Pancras? No thanks, keep requiring changes for radial movements.