My idea for Transpennine limited-stop fast services

[backontrack]

Please don't turn this into a HS2 thread, I'd rather make this Transpennine-based.

If HS2 gets called off, and because of this, the government decide that we don't need HS3 anymore (even though we do) then TPExpress may want to run limited-stop services Just wondered how much time a Newcastle-Liverpool service would shave off if it only called at these stations:

• Newcastle Central
• York
• Leeds
• Manchester Victoria
• Liverpool Lime Street

Could any other fast TPExpress services get off the ground?

 

[yorkie]

So you want to know how much time can be saved between Newcastle and York by not calling at Durham, Darlington, Northallerton? About 3 minutes each, so you'd get it down from 1hr 4 to about 55min, which seems about right given 125mph trains were timed for around 50min.

As for not calling at Huddersfield, I'd say 2 minutes as the line speed is slow.

So about 11 minutes saving in total; very minimal to miss out some major stations!

 

[dvalts]

There was a post in another thread about non-stop London-Edinburgh/Glasgow fast services, which someone pointed out did not actually make up much time by missing out a few stops. I think for a truly fast service across the Pennines/North-East, you would surely need some-kind of infrastructure upgrade first? (even if not a full-on HS3-type thing)

 

[backontrack]

I know it's a bad idea, but I could still happen because, to the ordinary consumer, less stops means faster, right?

I don't won't this kind of fast train, but I see it happening if HS3 is cancelled.

 

[dvalts]

Fewer stops would presumably mean less revenue? Unless there are going to be droves of new passengers turning up to save 10 minutes on their journey time from Liverpool to Newcastle.

 

[Iskra]

The point remains; that most people would settle for the existing services but with every train being formed of 6 cars instead of 3.

That is all that is needed to make most people content with TPE IMO.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fewer stops on the existing infrastructure also means you catch up the stopper in front just a bit sooner than you did before.

Seems to me that if there's a real need for what is referred to as HS3, it should stand on its own merits irrespective of HS2...

 

[fowler9]

Last time I went Liverpool to Newcastle back at the start of November I traveled up the west coast anyway because it worked out cheaper. I think there was a minimal time difference.

I think many people would be happier if each service could be 6 car instead of 3.

 

[IanXC]

I think if youre really interested in the Newcastle end you'd use 125 (potentially 140 post ERTMS) mph stock to cut a little more off - although given the alternative services available as far as York and Leeds the case might not be that strong.

Beyond that I don't think there's much to be gained beyond the current express service, without investment in passing loops and 4 tracking to overcome the issue of catching the stopping services.

 

[Greenback]

Faster journeys are not the only consideration for the majority of people. Frequency, convenience, comfort and price also factor in to the decision making process.

I doubt that saving 9-10 mins off a journey is going to produce enough additional passengers to make up for the numbers put off by not being able to board a direct train at places like Darlington, sorry.

 

[Iskra]

I think if youre really interested in the Newcastle end you'd use 125 (potentially 140 post ERTMS) mph stock to cut a little more off - although given the alternative services available as far as York and Leeds the case might not be that strong.

Beyond that I don't think there's much to be gained beyond the current express service, without investment in passing loops and 4 tracking to overcome the issue of catching the stopping services.

Personally, I think TPE serving Newcastle is a waste of resources and is essentially for revenue abstraction, so I'd cut TPE North of Northallerton on the ECML and redeploy the units. EC and XC offer a faster journey Newcastle-York anyway. Grand Central are going to a 2-hourly service York-Northallerton so Northern can fill in the gaps or the TPE Middlesbrough service can. That just leaves Chester-le-Street to be served, so I'd just stop 1 XC service an hour there in each direction.

 

[Greenback]

It's not just about speed. Cutting frequency will also reduce the attractiveness of rail travel for some and will lead to a loss of traffic, as will the loss of through services between Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally, I think TPE serving Newcastle is a waste of resources and is essentially for revenue abstraction, so I'd cut TPE North of Northallerton on the ECML and redeploy the units.

That would halve the number of services serving Newcastle/Durham/Darlington/Northallerton - Leeds corridor which is a not insignificant flow it would also remove the direct link between Manchester and Newcastle two major population centres in the North.

 

[Iskra]

It's not just about speed. Cutting frequency will also reduce the attractiveness of rail travel for some and will lead to a loss of traffic, as will the loss of through services between Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

If you can't look after your existing customers, then you shouldn't go chasing new ones. To me that's a fairly basic way of running a business. Some of the overcrowding on TPE Manchester-Leeds/Preston/Lancaster/Barrow services is disgraceful.

 

[Greenback]

People who travel from Newcastle to Liverpool or Manchester are their current customers. I don't understand your point, sorry. Unless you are saying that the stock can be used on the western side of the Pennines, which is a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[DarloRich]

The service is pretty good - what TPE need are longer trains.

 

[185143]

Please don't turn this into a HS2 thread, I'd rather make this Transpennine-based.

If HS2 gets called off, and because of this, the government decide that we don't need HS3 anymore (even though we do) then TPExpress may want to run limited-stop services Just wondered how much time a Newcastle-Liverpool service would shave off if it only called at these stations:

• Newcastle Central
• York
• Leeds
• Manchester Victoria
• Liverpool Lime Street

Could any other fast TPExpress services get off the ground?

I don't think I'd do York and Leeds, there are already lots of trains between the two!

 

[anti-pacer]

Personally, I think TPE serving Newcastle is a waste of resources and is essentially for revenue abstraction, so I'd cut TPE North of Northallerton on the ECML and redeploy the units. EC and XC offer a faster journey Newcastle-York anyway. Grand Central are going to a 2-hourly service York-Northallerton so Northern can fill in the gaps or the TPE Middlesbrough service can. That just leaves Chester-le-Street to be served, so I'd just stop 1 XC service an hour there in each direction.

Whilst I agree that EC/XC run faster journeys between York and Newcastle, I think it would be economic suicide to remove a direct link between Newcastle and the M62 corridor cities.

Newcastle is already geographically isolated from the main cluster of northern cities, so the rail link is vital. It also gives the North East a direct link to the main northern airport in Manchester, as does the Middlesbrough service.

The North East is, sadly, the most underperforming UK region. Your plans would make it worse. That said, I'm not adverse to the idea of faster running between Newcastle and Leeds.

I'm not sure if this would work, but how about this;

1tph TPE Newcastle-Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester Victoria-Liverpool Lime Street

1tph TPE Newcastle-CLSt-Durham-Darlington-Northallerton-Thirsk-York-Leeds-Dewsbury-Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly-Airport

I'm not sure how this work with pathing, etc, but it would;

* Provide a faster link between Newcastle and the main core northern cities
* Alleviate pressure from XC for Newcastle-Leeds journeys
* Still provide a direct link between the North East/Vale of York and Leeds/Manchester/Airport

 

[js47604]

So braking from 100mph, stopping and accelerating back to 100mph to say nothing of the station dwell time takes 3 mins, yeah right

 

[The Planner]

Depends on the traction, for example a 100mph 350 is timed to do exactly that in 3 minutes including 1 minute dwell at Milton Keynes and Watford. I suspect there are plenty of other examples I could find. Its only dwell times that stop trains such and Pendos and Voyagers from achieving 3 minutes across the board.

 

[berneyarms]

So braking from 100mph, stopping and accelerating back to 100mph to say nothing of the station dwell time takes 3 mins, yeah right

That was the standard time allowed on Irish Rail for a station stop using loco hauled Mark 3 stock on the Dublin/Cork route from 90mph running, and it worked!

People often don't realise that standard station stops don't add any more than that to overall journey time.

 

[55z]

Your idea of fast Liverpool to Newcastle to flawed. You need to look at the travel markets Darlington, Durham & Huddersfield are big markets. Anyway presently the the travel end to end time is around 3 hours, the plan after electrification is around 2½ hours with present station stops. A much better idea is tilting trains, tilting Micklefield to Manchester would mean a substantial time reductions.

 

[glbotu]

As a whole, just missing out Durham would be a huge mistake. The Durham - Newcastle flow is pretty busy throughout the day. The 0801 from Durham - Newcastle enters Durham somewhat empty and leaves it packed. (I know that's a peak flow, but I've been on these at various times and always found them busy).

 

[Senex]

Depends on the traction, for example a 100mph 350 is timed to do exactly that in 3 minutes including 1 minute dwell at Milton Keynes and Watford. I suspect there are plenty of other examples I could find. Its only dwell times that stop trains such and Pendos and Voyagers from achieving 3 minutes across the board.

Part of the argument when TPE's Class 185s were put on Scotland services despite being only 100-mph units was that they could manage with shorter dwell-times in stations because of their door-provision in comparison with Pendos and Voyagers. Not wholly convincing, but a good try from DfT staff ...

Certainly experience shews that a 3-minute stop allowance works fine for modern high-powered stock at stations where the stop is on a through line and an unrestricted approach is possible. In the case of TPE, that would be Northallerton, Chester-le-Street, or East Garforth, but Durham northbound and Darlington both ways involve turnouts with all the questions of signalling-imposed time-loss an so on. Just think of up stops at Peterborough before the up fast platform was built!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a whole, just missing out Durham would be a huge mistake. The Durham - Newcastle flow is pretty busy throughout the day. The 0801 from Durham - Newcastle enters Durham somewhat empty and leaves it packed. (I know that's a peak flow, but I've been on these at various times and always found them busy).

But should long-distance "fast" services be taking this sort of short-distance traffic in any case (or Huddersfield-Leeds to take another example)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, I think TPE serving Newcastle is a waste of resources and is essentially for revenue abstraction, so I'd cut TPE North of Northallerton on the ECML and redeploy the units. EC and XC offer a faster journey Newcastle-York anyway. Grand Central are going to a 2-hourly service York-Northallerton so Northern can fill in the gaps or the TPE Middlesbrough service can. That just leaves Chester-le-Street to be served, so I'd just stop 1 XC service an hour there in each direction.

So whilst passengers from the Birmingham/Sheffield direction deserve their two trains an hour through to Newcastle, passengers from Liverpool and Manchester should have to change trains? If there's over-capacity on the York-Newcastle leg, why not terminate one of the XCs at York and make the TPE a genuine fast on that northern section?

There does seem to an interesting question here of how many trains are needed running through north of York, given that London, Birmingham, and Lioverpool lines all converge here. Is there enough traffic for five or six trains an hour? If not, which places should have through services? Which trains should be fast and which should be the slow and tedious ones?

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely between York and Newcastle TPE provide the semifast services by design in the current timetable, hence the reason they run the more local stations?

If someone wants to turn TPE into a third 'fast' operator (i.e. third behind ECML and XC), then surely you'd then need a fourth operator to cover places like Thirsk, Northallerton and Chester le Street...

Isn't there a slight snag with this plan? A solution without a problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends on the traction, for example a 100mph 350 is timed to do exactly that in 3 minutes including 1 minute dwell at Milton Keynes and Watford.

Though if you look at the running times of LM evening peak commuter services, there is a *lot* of sloppy running and delays of 5-10 minutes here and there, so I think those timetables are largely unrealistic at busy times.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

Isn't there a slight snag with this plan? A solution without a problem?

Yes, and yes. At the moment the TPE services provide trains at smaller stations, as well as the convenience of a through service from Newcastle to a few other major cities it wouldn't otherwise be directly connected to.

I don't think there is a massive, untapped potential to save a few minutes on a through journey from Newcastle to Leds or York, as alternatives already exist for those flows. I don't think that there is a massive untapped potential market for slightly faster journeys to Manchester or Liverpool. No evidence has been provided for it anyway.

What I do think is that the problems of overcrowding on other TPE routes need to be addressed, but not by taking services away from elsewhere.

 

[Senex]

Surely between York and Newcastle TPE provide the semifast services by design in the current timetable, hence the reason they run the more local stations?

If someone wants to turn TPE into a third 'fast' operator (i.e. third behind ECML and XC), then surely you'd then need a fourth operator to cover places like Thirsk, Northallerton and Chester le Street...

Isn't there a slight snag with this plan? A solution without a problem?

The problem is the extremely poor journey-times between Liverpool and Manchester and the north-east of England.

I'm not suggesting a solution but asking a question. Is it sensible where there are five trains per hour over a section, in three services, to have the two plus two trains of two of those services fast and the one train of the third service slow? Clearly the hourly fast London-Edinburgh service shouldn't be the stopper and probably the Birmingham-Leeds-Glasgow shouldn't be either. But the XC Reading-Newcastle trains never seem too full north of York, and as for the secondary London-Newcastle/Edinburgh service, is there any reason why that should not make more stops. Should not all its trains serve both Northallerton and Durham? Or is it somehow axiomatic that when a service is already slow, it doesn't matter how much slower it becomes (rather as with lateness) and that traffic between the north-east and Manchester and Liverpool is somehow much less significant than traffic between Birmingham and Sheffield and the north-east? I thought the current political arguments were about much better and faster services across the north of England, not putting up with semi-fasts, like the old German Eilzüge, for all time.

 

[Greenback]

The problem is the extremely poor journey-times between Liverpool and Manchester and the north-east of England.

How much of a problem is it, though? Do you have any evidence to show that a sizeable market exists who don't travel by train at the moment but would travel by train if journey times could be cut by 14-15 mins over what they are now on these flows?

I'm not suggesting a solution but asking a question. Is it sensible where there are five trains per hour over a section, in three services, to have the two plus two trains of two of those services fast and the one train of the third service slow? Clearly the hourly fast London-Edinburgh service shouldn't be the stopper and probably the Birmingham-Leeds-Glasgow shouldn't be either. But the XC Reading-Newcastle trains never seem too full north of York, and as for the secondary London-Newcastle/Edinburgh service, is there any reason why that should not make more stops. Should not all its trains serve both Northallerton and Durham? Or is it somehow axiomatic that when a service is already slow, it doesn't matter how much slower it becomes (rather as with lateness) and that traffic between the north-east and Manchester and Liverpool is somehow much less significant than traffic between Birmingham and Sheffield and the north-east? I thought the current political arguments were about much better and faster services across the north of England, not putting up with semi-fasts, like the old German Eilzüge, for all time.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but there could well be pathing issues with having a more stops on some of the services without a timetable recast. Bear in mind that the XC and TPE services also need to fit in with junctions and other trains elsewhere, it can't all be based on the optimal stopping patterns for just one section of route.

There have to be compromises made between what is ideal in a perfect world and what is practical in the real world.

 

[The Planner]

Though if you look at the running times of LM evening peak commuter services, there is a *lot* of sloppy running and delays of 5-10 minutes here and there, so I think those timetables are largely unrealistic at busy times.

Neil

More than likely dwell time related, not easily solvable without either longer trains or taking other services out to allow the peaks to be slowed down.