Rail Replacement Services should replace trains as a last resort

[tiptoptaff]

Lets face facts. The reason diversionary trains don't run now is because Virgin don't have enough diesel stock to run a primarily diesel service pattern

Fixed that for you

 

[Ken H]

Virgin could always get someone like west coast to run some preston -carlisle trains via settle...

 

[tiptoptaff]

Virgin could always get someone like west coast to run some preston -carlisle trains via settle...

Not a hope in hell. Why would ANY professional railway choose to hire in those cowboys?!

 

[Ianno87]

Virgin could always get someone like west coast to run some preston -carlisle trains via settle...

Not very "on brand" for them! Plus, still a lot of rolling stock and drivers to be found...plus if the WCML is blocked, Carnforth shed may not be accessible!

 

[Timrud]

Are you calling Virgin professional?!?

 

[yorksrob]

Fixed that for you

They have thunderbird loco's and they have diesel stock that won't be needed due to the closure.

If they can't cobble together a skeleton service out of that lot, they're not tring hard enough.

 

[tiptoptaff]

They have thunderbird loco's and they have diesel stock that won't be needed due to the closure.

If they can't cobble together a skeleton service out of that lot, they're not tring hard enough.

But most of the diesel stock will be running a full service on lines that aren't blocked, such as North Wales. The Thunderbirds aren't Virgins to play with. They have to be kept in certain locations at all times.

 

[yorksrob]

But most of the diesel stock will be running a full service on lines that aren't blocked, such as North Wales. The Thunderbirds aren't Virgins to play with. They have to be kept in certain locations at all times.

What about the Voyagers that would otherwise be running to destinations North of Preston ?

 

[Ken H]

maybe there should be a strategic reserve of trains to cope with diversions, special events etc. half a dozen HST's should do it. Not owned by a TOC.

 

[tiptoptaff]

What about the Voyagers that would otherwise be running to destinations North of Preston ?

As has been posted further up, there aren't that many of them. Not enough to run a meaningful service. And it's all very well getting uppity about it, but there isn't any point in running if you cannot provide something meaningful. The average punter doesn't want to see a train service for the sake of it, they want to see something that's useful. The odd train a few times a day that they to change on to and off, that takes as long if not longer than a bus isn't going to be attractive to them

 

[RT4038]

So we are back to the diversionary trains only being any use to rail enthusiasts, who could buy tickets on charter trains if they wish to travel on these 'rare' lines.

 

[Bevan Price]

Agreed. It's probably a bigger issue on a forum such as this, most of the travelling public seem far less concerned by an *occasional* bustitution (even if a bit frustrating).

I would disagree with that point. Passengers do care - and when there is known to be engineering work and RRBs, lots of passengers abandon rail travel and, where available, use their cars - or don't bother to travel at all. There are almost always lots of empty seats on WCML trains south of Preston when there are bus replacements beyond Preston.

 

[Ken H]

So we are back to the diversionary trains only being any use to rail enthusiasts, who could buy tickets on charter trains if they wish to travel on these 'rare' lines.

why is preston-settle-carlisle 'useful' to enthusiasts. Plenty of service trains. OK, clitheroe - Hellifield is sunday only but still doable.
A proper train from preston to carlisle when the WCML is closed will benefit passengers with luggage, kids, those who get sick on buses (me) and other people who dont want to spend 90 minutes on a chunderbus.

 

[yorksrob]

As has been posted further up, there aren't that many of them. Not enough to run a meaningful service. And it's all very well getting uppity about it, but there isn't any point in running if you cannot provide something meaningful. The average punter doesn't want to see a train service for the sake of it, they want to see something that's useful. The odd train a few times a day that they to change on to and off, that takes as long if not longer than a bus isn't going to be attractive to them

There is. With a special timetable you can at least channel people towards when the trains are. This is the age of the internet and pre-planning afterall. There'll also be fewer electric trains running, so you can use the spare ones to connect to the South.

And people do cram onto trains that are "a few times a day". That's how things like Grand Central and Hull trains work. By your reckoning they would all be empty !

 

[Ken H]

I would disagree with that point. Passengers do care - and when there is known to be engineering work and RRBs, lots of passengers abandon rail travel and, where available, use their cars - or don't bother to travel at all. There are almost always lots of empty seats on WCML trains south of Preston when there are bus replacements beyond Preston.

i was talking to someone looking to travel Manchester - Carlisle. they had booked tickets and later found out there was a bus Preston - Carlisle. They were talking about going via Carlisle, but i told them about the Leeds-Carlisle trains. Many people resent paying for a train and getting a bus. If you want a bus you get a £1 megabus ticket.

 

[yorksrob]

So we are back to the diversionary trains only being any use to rail enthusiasts, who could buy tickets on charter trains if they wish to travel on these 'rare' lines.

It always amazes me that rail enthusiasts are accused of being out of touch with the general public, given some of the things people speaking for the industry come out with.

why is preston-settle-carlisle 'useful' to enthusiasts. Plenty of service trains. OK, clitheroe - Hellifield is sunday only but still doable.
A proper train from preston to carlisle when the WCML is closed will benefit passengers with luggage, kids, those who get sick on buses (me) and other people who dont want to spend 90 minutes on a chunderbus.

Absolutely.

 

[GrimShady]

Were Virgin forced to give up their 57 fleet?

If not there's no reason they shouldn't have held them in reserve apart from being unwilling to maintain them or find work on charters when not required.

 

[RT4038]

why is preston-settle-carlisle 'useful' to enthusiasts. Plenty of service trains. OK, clitheroe - Hellifield is sunday only but still doable.
A proper train from preston to carlisle when the WCML is closed will benefit passengers with luggage, kids, those who get sick on buses (me) and other people who dont want to spend 90 minutes on a chunderbus.

Luggage goes in the coach hold. Kids travel in the coach seats like everyone else. The small number of people who get sick or don't want to travel by RRB are too expensive to cater for so will have to travel on another day. When trains did travel via this long winded diversion route they were not well loaded, as passengers did not want the additional journey time. Waste of money to pander to enthusiasts.

 

[Ken H]

maybe Virgin should get some of these

(Seen in Argostoli, Kefalonia)View media item 3415

 

[GrimShady]

maybe there should be a strategic reserve of trains to cope with diversions, special events etc. half a dozen HST's should do it. Not owned by a TOC.

Or a reserve of suitable Thunderbird locos. Maybe even a reserve of barrier coaches that can provide HEP for use with freight locos. Good use for old MK3 sleepers!

 

[yorksrob]

Luggage goes in the coach hold. Kids travel in the coach seats like everyone else. The small number of people who get sick or don't want to travel by RRB are too expensive to cater for so will have to travel on another day. When trains did travel via this long winded diversion route they were not well loaded, as passengers did not want the additional journey time. Waste of money to pander to enthusiasts.

You're living in denial of reality.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Who are these people who 'get sick on buses'? I note that far more journeys are made by bus than by train and these are largely in urban settings with lots of stopping and starting, corners and so forth. I use buses regularly and have yet to see someone being sick on board or alighting because they are unwell.
One of my most recent journeys by coach was after a Voyager trip from Sheffield to Birmingham wedged in the vestibule next to the toilet (as specially recommended for Preston-Carlisle shuttles by some on this thread). No prizes for guessing on which vehicle I felt the most 'sick' even though I did happen to sitting next to the toilet on the coach.

 

[RT4038]

You're living in denial of reality.

No. We all know that this kind of rail diversion could be done if enough money was thrown at it. So the issue is - is this money worth it? We fundamentally disagree on this - you would run trains at any price, and I would do it only cost effectively. You believe that travelling by train is the only way to go - I don't. Some passengers will and some won't. Each of us have our own opinions of the percentage.

Probably the only way to determine this would be to offer both rail diversion and RRBs (on this particular route) and fares to match the differential in costs of provision.

 

[yorksrob]

No. We all know that this kind of rail diversion could be done if enough money was thrown at it. So the issue is - is this money worth it? We fundamentally disagree on this - you would run trains at any price, and I would do it only cost effectively. You believe that travelling by train is the only way to go - I don't. Some passengers will and some won't. Each of us have our own opinions of the percentage.

Probably the only way to determine this would be to offer both rail diversion and RRBs (on this particular route) and fares to match the differential in costs of provision.

So essentially it boils down to the TOC not wanting to pay the extra cost to run a train service.

The majority of passengers paying for a train ticket want a seat on a train, otherwise they would get the National Express.

 

[chorleyjeff]

If you get sick on coaches you do not travel on them. So no surprise you don't see these people on coaches.

 

[Bevan Price]

maybe Virgin should get some of these

(Seen in Argostoli, Kefalonia)View media item 3415

They have already got this at Carlisle - all it needs is some kind of motor fitted:

 

[RT4038]

So essentially it boils down to the TOC not wanting to pay the extra cost to run a train service.

The majority of passengers paying for a train ticket want a seat on a train, otherwise they would get the National Express.

It is not the TOC, because additional costs for disruption due to track work would be down to Network Rail, or catered for in the franchise agreement. so the DfT

I am not sure that your statement regarding the majority of passengers is really true in this particular disruption case. The rail diversion is so long and slow that the time taken is as long as the road route (if not longer). If those passengers were given the choice of tickets reflecting the costs of providing the RRB and the rail diversion, I suspect that most would opt for the RRB.

Passengers paying for a train ticket do so trading the factors of, inter alia, journey time, departure time convenience, price and comfort, any of which may favour either mode depending on the journey. In the case of this particular diversion journey time is neutral for the section of diversion, but this will increase in the favour of rail the further the remainder of the journey is by train, and the departure time convenience is the same.

It would be a mistake to assume that because a passenger has bought a train ticket that they would not ride a coach if any of the other factors were different, depending on the journey in question.

 

[yorksrob]

It is not the TOC, because additional costs for disruption due to track work would be down to Network Rail, or catered for in the franchise agreement. so the DfT

I am not sure that your statement regarding the majority of passengers is really true in this particular disruption case. The rail diversion is so long and slow that the time taken is as long as the road route (if not longer). If those passengers were given the choice of tickets reflecting the costs of providing the RRB and the rail diversion, I suspect that most would opt for the RRB.

Passengers paying for a train ticket do so trading the factors of, inter alia, journey time, departure time convenience, price and comfort, any of which may favour either mode depending on the journey. In the case of this particular diversion journey time is neutral for the section of diversion, but this will increase in the favour of rail the further the remainder of the journey is by train.

It would be a mistake to assume that because a passenger has bought a train ticket that they would not ride a coach if any of the other factors were different, depending on the journey in question.

I'm not sure it's comparing apples with apples - giving passengers the option of a train but only if you jack up the price beyond what they would pay ordinarily.

It's interesting that people are talking of the diversion being "as long as the road route". All things being equal, including length or price, people will prefer the train.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure it's comparing apples with apples - giving passengers the option of a train but only if you jack up the price beyond what they would pay ordinarily.

It's interesting that people are talking of the diversion being "as long as the road route". All things being equal, including length or price, people will prefer the train.

But cost of provision is not equal, and in this country, how much things cost to provide will always be taken into account too.

 

[gaillark]

Unhappily many TOC's, such as Virgin, have embraced bustitution when, with a little forethought, they could have put in place effective rail alternatives via diversionary routes. This is doubtless because they don't have to worry about route knowledge, complex timetabling etc and above all its very cheap. However one look sat it though unless there is no practical rail alternative, the passenger is being well short changed.

In view of this I propose that for each proposed bustitution, the cost of providing that bus service should be established and the cost of any realistic rail alternative. The rail operator should then be given the option of using a bus, in which case they will be fined the difference less the cost of a suitable refund to each passenger. Should they instead use a reasonable rail alternative, then they would neither pay the fine nor the passenger reimbursement (as passenger is still travelling by chosen method).

What, apart from howls of protest from the ever-greedy bearded one, is not to like with this proposal?

Agree 100%.
Yes arguments about alternative line capacity are relevant however many people forgot where there is a will there is a way.
Although I am not a fan of XC, XC do keep many of their services running each week via diversionary routes. So hats off to them.
Caledonian sleeper found ways to run to/from King's Cross when Euston was not available.
When Virgin provided diverted services over the S &C they were well used. Virgin is a very poor operator and can't see why people like them because Virgin relies on gimmicks such as Facebook likes. People should not forgot also when Virgin had a will in days gone by when it was run by career railwaymen it also ran trains to Euston via the Chiltern line when the west coast main line was being modernised. The Midland main line also ran direct services from St. Pancras to Manchester at the same period.
So there is no real reason with some cooperation from other TOC'S why trains cannot still run via an alternative route most of the time. Getting rail replacement buses is just a cop out. British Rail would have kept the trains moving. Unfortunately too many accountants manage the railway today (as they can make money in not providing a train service) opposed to providing a decent services on through trains.