Rail Replacement Services should replace trains as a last resort

[yorksrob]

75% of the passengers that normally travel won't, because of the huge extra journey time and the inconvenience of changing to the diesel train en route. Far more economical to convey the residue by bus in this instance.

Well, that solves the dire overcrowding issues that have been put forward by some as an excuse not to run a train diversion.

So its acceptable to drag your stuff off a train and put it on another one, then do the same again for another train but not for a coach which could potentially be quicker that a diverted train? I don't think that is the premise behind "keeping people on a train"

Well, I do. To put it another way, if I have to be turfed off the train anyway, I'd rather be put on another train, than a bus. The bus would have to be a lot quicker for most people to choose it.

I agree with @RT4038 , if it were me and I was told I am changing train twice, the fact I'm changing train twice would make me bin it off.

Sometimes one has to travel, if one has to work the next day, for example.

Of course, if you are in a position to travel another day, this conversation doesn't really affect you.

 

[yorksrob]

your could decide not to do catering for the preston carlisle leg....

Or you could get the trolley off one unit and on to the next at Hellifield or somewhere.

 

[RLBH]

far better than dragging luggage/kids/granny out of the station to a scrum getting on buses.

Well, I do. To put it another way, if I have to be turfed off the train anyway, I'd rather be put on another train, than a bus. The bus would have to be a lot quicker for most people to choose it.

Most people will prefer to avoid changing. Once they've had a change forced upon them, they'll almost always want to travel by the quickest means possible, whether bus or train.

The cross-platform change referred to above won't happen, and the extra diesel train won't be waiting patiently in the platform it is allocated to. Granny, the kids and the luggage are going to have to be shifted around anyway, and there'll probably be a scrum to get on the diversionary train too.

As soon as you start talking about diverting from electrified routes over non-electrifed ones, the only consideration is whether the bus or the train is faster, because the passengers will have to change train anyway. It might be a different conversation if there were sufficient electric trains and diesel locomotives to haul them, but there aren't.

Could replacement buses be better organised? In an ideal world, possibly. But the fact that they have problems doesn't mean we should just give up on them and send unsuspecting passengers on an impromptu railtour of obscure branch lines.

Actually, the really awkward one as far as I'm concerned is RRBs on suburban routes. The hire operators who are brought in invariably operate coaches rather than city buses, so dwell times go completely to pot, while they get stuck in traffic and often need to use tight back streets to get to railway stations. And diversions are normally totally impossible on these sorts of routes, because the entire point of them is serving intermediate stations.

 

[yorksrob]

Most people will prefer to avoid changing. Once they've had a change forced upon them, they'll almost always want to travel by the quickest means possible, whether bus or train.

The cross-platform change referred to above won't happen, and the extra diesel train won't be waiting patiently in the platform it is allocated to. Granny, the kids and the luggage are going to have to be shifted around anyway, and there'll probably be a scrum to get on the diversionary train too.

As soon as you start talking about diverting from electrified routes over non-electrifed ones, the only consideration is whether the bus or the train is faster, because the passengers will have to change train anyway. It might be a different conversation if there were sufficient electric trains and diesel locomotives to haul them, but there aren't.

Could replacement buses be better organised? In an ideal world, possibly. But the fact that they have problems doesn't mean we should just give up on them and send unsuspecting passengers on an impromptu railtour of obscure branch lines.

Actually, the really awkward one as far as I'm concerned is RRBs on suburban routes. The hire operators who are brought in invariably operate coaches rather than city buses, so dwell times go completely to pot, while they get stuck in traffic and often need to use tight back streets to get to railway stations. And diversions are normally totally impossible on these sorts of routes, because the entire point of them is serving intermediate stations.

I don't believe people will automatically prefer a bus/coach if it's only marginally quicker.

None of your arguments stack up - connecting trains can be timed to make a decent connection.

Lines with stopping services are frequently used for diversions elsewhere, so there's no reason why they can't be here.

VT itself has run diesel blockade busters on the Southern part of the route, so it can be done.

You seem to be looking at things from a completely topsy-turvey point of view.

The question isn't "why should we give up on rail replacement buses"

The question is why should we give up on the railway in the first place where an alternative route in place.

 

[RLBH]

I don't believe people will automatically prefer a bus/coach if it's only marginally quicker.

If there's only a few minutes in it, yes. If it's appreciably slower to stick with the train, they won't. Most people's first priority - especially during disruption - is to get to their destination.

None of your arguments stack up - connecting trains can be timed to make a decent connection.

They can be - but only at one particular time. Unless by some remarkable coincidence the running times over the diversionary route allow for the timetables to dovetail exactly. If they don't, then you have to either slow the diversion down or accept that the connections will be all over the place.

Even assuming it does match up precisely, improvising cross-platform interchange at what's normally a through station is asking for trouble. Appropriate platforms simply may not exist, for one thing!

Lines with stopping services are frequently used for diversions elsewhere, so there's no reason why they can't be here.

They certainly can be, but there's not necessarily any benefit to doing so. Where diversions are sensible, they should absolutely be done. But we shouldn't be sending the Paddington to Pembroke Dock train down the Heart of Wales line because there's a block on at Cardiff, for example. That's obviously ludicrous.

VT itself has run diesel blockade busters on the Southern part of the route, so it can be done.

In cases where it made sense to do so. The alternate routes were reasonably comparable on time, and had sufficient capacity to accomodate the additional services. It's doubtful whether the same thing would be done today with the Chiltern route being busier.

They don't run diversionary diesel services on the northern part of the WCML because it doesn't make sense. The alternative route is so much longer, with lower speeds, that it's not in passengers' interests to use it.

 

[yorksrob]

If there's only a few minutes in it, yes. If it's appreciably slower to stick with the train, they won't. Most people's first priority - especially during disruption - is to get to their destination.

They can be - but only at one particular time. Unless by some remarkable coincidence the running times over the diversionary route allow for the timetables to dovetail exactly. If they don't, then you have to either slow the diversion down or accept that the connections will be all over the place.

Even assuming it does match up precisely, improvising cross-platform interchange at what's normally a through station is asking for trouble. Appropriate platforms simply may not exist, for one thing!

They certainly can be, but there's not necessarily any benefit to doing so. Where diversions are sensible, they should absolutely be done. But we shouldn't be sending the Paddington to Pembroke Dock train down the Heart of Wales line because there's a block on at Cardiff, for example. That's obviously ludicrous.

In cases where it made sense to do so. The alternate routes were reasonably comparable on time, and had sufficient capacity to accomodate the additional services. It's doubtful whether the same thing would be done today with the Chiltern route being busier.

They don't run diversionary diesel services on the northern part of the WCML because it doesn't make sense. The alternative route is so much longer, with lower speeds, that it's not in passengers' interests to use it.

If you have a diverted leg of the journey which inevitably has unusual timings, then you time the connecting service to meet up with it.

We're not talking about an outlandish diversion - the S&C is reasonably parallel to the WCML.

And we're not talking about detraining people at minor stations. Crewe is not Norton Bridge.

It would be interesting if on one occasion, people were given the choice of connecting to a diverted train over the S&C, or catching the apparently so speedy bus. An independant body could see how many decided to use each.

 

[A0wen]

I don't believe people will automatically prefer a bus/coach if it's only marginally quicker.

None of your arguments stack up - connecting trains can be timed to make a decent connection.

Lines with stopping services are frequently used for diversions elsewhere, so there's no reason why they can't be here.

VT itself has run diesel blockade busters on the Southern part of the route, so it can be done.

You seem to be looking at things from a completely topsy-turvey point of view.

The question isn't "why should we give up on rail replacement buses"

The question is why should we give up on the railway in the first place where an alternative route in place.

Naturally you work in the rail industry in a planning capacity and have the requisite experience to make the assertions you do?

I'm actually guessing you're just another armchair expert who knows everything without being privy to the real facts.

 

[yorksrob]

Naturally you work in the rail industry in a planning capacity and have the requisite experience to make the assertions you do?

I'm actually guessing you're just another armchair expert who knows everything without being privy to the real facts.

I'm not. Are you in train planning ?

 

[Clip]

or pendo to Preston, cross the platform to a diesel train, on to carlisle with another cross platform change onto another pendo to Scotland. far better than dragging luggage/kids/granny out of the station to a scrum getting on buses. And actually what the customer has paid for.

so 2 changes then rather than 1 change and you somehow think this is better? And why scrum for getting on buses? Are people not adult enough to queue normally? They seem to be when i have had to use such things

I would suggest:

Run as many between Crewe/preston and Scotland as you can cobble together

Don't fully book all the seats with Scotland passengers. There are likely to be plenty of people wanting to go to places between Crewe and Carlisle, so they can stay on their Pendo to the limit of the blockade, relieving the Voyager.

Also, the double voyager may have to be double manned, but you're running fewer trains to begin with, so the additional staff are less likely to be needed elsewhere.

So your idea is to stop people from going on their chosen journey then and you think this is somehow better?

And as I have pointed out this would be 3 yes 3 possible trips via the diversion - what about the rest of the day then or are you happy with 3 yes thats right, 3 train trips just for the sake of getting a train? Not very good service that is it?

 

[A0wen]

I'm not. Are you in train planning ?

No - but I do at least listen to those who do, such as @The Planner who has explained more than once that there are rules about when bustitution is used and what alternatives are considered. But unfortunately you and few other owners of tin-foil hats keep on arguing that it's some conspiracy by the industry not to run trains.

 

[yorksrob]

No - but I do at least listen to those who do, such as @The Planner who has explained more than once that there are rules about when bustitution is used and what alternatives are considered. But unfortunately you and few other owners of tin-foil hats keep on arguing that it's some conspiracy by the industry not to run trains.

In truth, most of the arguments on this thread have been based around the cost of diversions (surely political around how TOC's are incentivised to operate) and under what circumstances a passenger will prefer a bus/coach or diversion (something all passengers will have an opinion on)

Even @The Planner 's main point seemed to be that the worst option isnt chosen by default. Doubtless this is true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that VT are giving diversions enough priority in their thinking.

 

[The Planner]

In truth, most of the arguments on this thread have been based around the cost of diversions (surely political around how TOC's are incentivised to operate) and under what circumstances a passenger will prefer a bus/coach or diversion (something all passengers will have an opinion on)

Even @The Planner 's main point seemed to be that the worst option isnt chosen by default. Doubtless this is true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that VT are giving diversions enough priority in their thinking.

There is a fine balance to be made though. Even if you use the S&C example, you have got 2 Virgins and a TPE per hour. You have to consider how many people you can reasonably divert in a time period using whatever stock you can utilise, so Voyagers in this case as I suspect TPE would throw the towel in too. Do/can you match the existing level of service with a 5 car or do you thin and try a 10 car per hour or do you cull something else and go 15 car (though Preston and Carlisle would be an issue)? The problem you have is that in this age of information at your fingertips people will look at a journey planner and see a train that goes to/from Scotland directly, they may then consider the extra journey time and think "yeah ok, I can live with that" and you still have to consider the walk ups on the day. Unless you go reservation only (which I don't think is a palatable option as you still have the walk ups to deal with) you have the risk of a high percentage of travellers turning up and having either a crap journey or not getting on a train. As much as people may not like it, TOCs are a business, so reputation matters. If you get battered on Twitter and in the media, they will do it once and next time say "do not travel"

 

[Ken H]

There is a fine balance to be made though. Even if you use the S&C example, you have got 2 Virgins and a TPE per hour. You have to consider how many people you can reasonably divert in a time period using whatever stock you can utilise, so Voyagers in this case as I suspect TPE would throw the towel in too. Do/can you match the existing level of service with a 5 car or do you thin and try a 10 car per hour or do you cull something else and go 15 car (though Preston and Carlisle would be an issue)? The problem you have is that in this age of information at your fingertips people will look at a journey planner and see a train that goes to/from Scotland directly, they may then consider the extra journey time and think "yeah ok, I can live with that" and you still have to consider the walk ups on the day. Unless you go reservation only (which I don't think is a palatable option as you still have the walk ups to deal with) you have the risk of a high percentage of travellers turning up and having either a crap journey or not getting on a train. As much as people may not like it, TOCs are a business, so reputation matters. If you get battered on Twitter and in the media, they will do it once and next time say "do not travel"

In actual fact how many people are affected? London-scotland passengers will use ECML. Brum -Scotland passengers will use XC, Manchester -Scotland passengers could well use TPE to leeds then S&C to carlisle.
So its only people from part of the North West going to Scotland and people going to Carlisle. And Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith passengers

So you dont need hourly 11 coach trains.

but you need to make sure passengers divert eastwards, and not clog up the replacement service. And pay providers on other routes to have enough carriages on.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a fine balance to be made though. Even if you use the S&C example, you have got 2 Virgins and a TPE per hour. You have to consider how many people you can reasonably divert in a time period using whatever stock you can utilise, so Voyagers in this case as I suspect TPE would throw the towel in too. Do/can you match the existing level of service with a 5 car or do you thin and try a 10 car per hour or do you cull something else and go 15 car (though Preston and Carlisle would be an issue)? The problem you have is that in this age of information at your fingertips people will look at a journey planner and see a train that goes to/from Scotland directly, they may then consider the extra journey time and think "yeah ok, I can live with that" and you still have to consider the walk ups on the day. Unless you go reservation only (which I don't think is a palatable option as you still have the walk ups to deal with) you have the risk of a high percentage of travellers turning up and having either a crap journey or not getting on a train. As much as people may not like it, TOCs are a business, so reputation matters. If you get battered on Twitter and in the media, they will do it once and next time say "do not travel"

I have no doubt that this is all true, and it's also true that there's a balance to be struck.

In terms of reputation, I remember when I booked on the Pretendolino, the website gave out all sorts of dire warnings along the lines of "this train is likely to be extremely busy. You are advised to book a reservation" Result: I booked my reservation and had a very good journey. Doubtless some thought better of it and chose another time. We were all warned though.

 

[The Planner]

In actual fact how many people are affected? London-scotland passengers will use ECML. Brum -Scotland passengers will use XC, Manchester -Scotland passengers could well use TPE to leeds then S&C to carlisle.
So its only people from part of the North West going to Scotland and people going to Carlisle. And Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith passengers

So you dont need hourly 11 coach trains.

but you need to make sure passengers divert eastwards, and not clog up the replacement service. And pay providers on other routes to have enough carriages on.

That is the crux of it, you cannot make sure people divert. Like I have said, if going via the S&C diversion is still quicker than XC via the East Coast people from Birmingham will not go that way. Also how do you deal with the extra passengers you are expecting XC to deal with due to disruption which is of no concern to them? They have no way of being paid to deal with that, even if they could magic up extra stock. Same goes for Manchester passengers, if a journey planner is telling you that via the WCML is still quicker they will go that way. Also paying other operators to deal with that in a lot of cases will make the actual work un-affordable and be deferred or stop other work happening as the cash is diverted to that job which has been considered the priority.

I have no doubt that this is all true, and it's also true that there's a balance to be struck.

In terms of reputation, I remember when I booked on the Pretendolino, the website gave out all sorts of dire warnings along the lines of "this train is likely to be extremely busy. You are advised to book a reservation" Result: I booked my reservation and had a very good journey. Doubtless some thought better of it and chose another time. We were all warned though.

That is because you gambled and ignored the dire warning which in itself worked, it put people off travelling. Would your journey have been the same if that warning wasn't there?

 

[yorksrob]

That is because you gambled and ignored the dire warning which in itself worked, it put people off travelling. Would your journey have been the same if that warning wasn't there?

Well I did have a seat reservation, so I assumed that it was likely to be honoured.

Not having a reasonably priced advanced fare would have been more likely to put me off, but then I think TOC's already use this method when there are engineering works.