Speculative: Scotrail - Post Covid Consultation - Service Reductions

[Bletchleyite]

This is a speculative thread to run alongside "Scotrail - Post Covid Consultation - Service Reductions": https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...service-reductions.221416/page-9#post-5280201

As a starter for 10, if frequencies are to be cut, a Takt should be considered - clockface timetables (even if only some of them extend to e.g. Wick) and connections should be planned properly.

For example:

This used to be one of the bugbears with the HML service - there was a 3 car 170 that left Glasgow at 1810 or so for Inverness, so the first of the evening off-peak services. It stopped at Every. Single. Station. from Larbert to Inverness, including "local" shacks like Bridge of Allan & was always absolutely mobbed with a mix of local commuters & people who'd waited for the first off-peak departure.

Yes, that isn't great. A logical Takt would have something more local (to Dundee perhaps) run hourly ahead of the HML service, which itself should do Stirling and Perth then all stations to Inverness (maybe alternate some of them, but keep it simple and consistent). The express would have caught up by Stirling or Perth and would provide quality interchange.

This of course only works if the timetables are regular and clockface.

Another thing worth doing is perhaps having two hourly (again clockface) Edinburgh-HML and Glasgow-HML, and in the opposite hour Glasgow-Stirling/Edinburgh-Stirling, timed to connect in both directions. Or even consider using 2-car units and portion-working, giving hourly to both.

 

[adrock1976]

Being as the Edinburgh - Inverness is proposed to run via Stirling and using that as a start point, I would suggest the following:

Inverness - Stirling traditional InterCity every 60 minutes, then alternating between Glasgow Queen Street (non stop from Stirling) and Edinburgh Waverley (calling Falkirk Grahamston and Haymarket).

Glasgow Queen Street - Dundee Regional Express every 2 hours (opposite hour to the Inverness) calling Stirling, Dunblane, Gleneagles, Perth, Invergowrie, and Dundee

Edinburgh Waverley - Perth/Dundee (or Arbroath) via Kirkcaldy every 60 minutes calling Haymarket, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank, Bridge of Earn, and Perth. Extensions every 2 hours to Dundee or Arbroath calling Invergowrie, Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Balmossie (request stop), Monifieth, Barry Links (request stop), Golf Street (request stop), Carnoustie, and Arbroath. There would be a short working Arbroath - Dundee in the opposite hour so as to provide a 60 minute frequency Dundee - Arbroath at the local stations.

 

[overthewater]

I cant see that new proposed Newburgh, or Leven Train stations getting built now, if there all these cuts going about.

 

[Falcon1200]

Inverness - Stirling traditional InterCity every 60 minutes, then alternating between Glasgow Queen Street (non stop from Stirling) and Edinburgh Waverley (calling Falkirk Grahamston and Haymarket).

That is an interesting and logical idea, but can the HML traffic justify an hourly service, given that even pre-Covid such a frequency was not provided ?

I agree fully that the longer distance, ie Inverness and Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Glasgow, services should be express with stopping trains connecting at key locations such as Perth and Dundee, and regular clockface times are desirable too, however the single line sections north of Perth and Aberdeen are a major timetabling problem.

 

[tbtc]

As a starter for 10, if frequencies are to be cut, a Takt should be considered

Sounds lovely in theory, sure, but what actual proposals would you have? The network is pretty much "hub and spoke" around Glasgow and "hub and spoke" around Edinburgh - the only real interchanges you'd have would be between Inverness services at Perth, but that's pretty minor overall. There's not a lot of places where people would be making connections.

A logical Takt would have something more local (to Dundee perhaps) run hourly ahead of the HML service

Another thing worth doing is perhaps having two hourly (again clockface) Edinburgh-HML and Glasgow-HML, and in the opposite hour Glasgow-Stirling/Edinburgh-Stirling

So your starting point for "service reductions" would be a new hourly Glasgow - Dundee service as well as an hourly Highland Main Line service (which would be the most frequent that the line had ever had, as far as I am aware)...

Inverness - Stirling traditional InterCity every 60 minutes, then alternating between Glasgow Queen Street (non stop from Stirling) and Edinburgh Waverley (calling Falkirk Grahamston and Haymarket)

Again, as per above, an hourly service on the Highland Main Line isn't a reduction...

Glasgow Queen Street - Dundee Regional Express every 2 hours (opposite hour to the Inverness) calling Stirling, Dunblane, Gleneagles, Perth, Invergowrie, and Dundee

...not is an additional bi-hourly Glasgow - Dundee service...

Edinburgh Waverley - Perth/Dundee (or Arbroath) via Kirkcaldy every 60 minutes calling Haymarket, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank, Bridge of Earn, and Perth

...or a new station at Bridge Of Earn...

Extensions every 2 hours to Dundee or Arbroath calling Invergowrie, Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Balmossie (request stop), Monifieth, Barry Links (request stop), Golf Street (request stop), Carnoustie, and Arbroath. There would be a short working Arbroath - Dundee in the opposite hour so as to provide a 60 minute frequency Dundee - Arbroath at the local stations.

...or hourly trains from Balmossie to Golf Street.

I like the idea of the thread, I think that there are some discussions that we could have about how to squeeze more from less (e.g. before electrification I might have suggested that some of the Glasgow - Inverness/ Aberdeen trains pick up a handful of stops to replace off peak Glasgow - Dunblane services, but putting additional local stops onto a duty run by old HSTs in lieu of a modern EMU would be a very bad move!)...

...maybe there are some places where a service could be cut off peak to free up a unit or two - e.g. Gorebridge to Tweedbank is around an hour for the round trip, so you could cut the frequency south of Gorebridge to hourly off peak and free up a DMU...

...maybe the number of Fife Circle trains to Edinburgh in the morning peak could be thinned out by terminating some at Inverkeithing (to run into the Dockyard siding, where they'd reverse, with passengers boarding the next train from Inverkeithing to Edinburgh)...

...maybe you could terminate a few Gourock/ Weymss Bay/ Largs/ Ardrossan services in the sidings east of Paisley station so that these towns get a good enough service as far as Paisley but with fewer trains carrying on into Glasgow...

...I'm not saying that my suggestions would be popular, but there seems to be no point in having a thread about "service reductions" where people just suggest enhancements and new stations...

 

[haggishunter]

That is an interesting and logical idea, but can the HML traffic justify an hourly service, given that even pre-Covid such a frequency was not provided ?

Though the capital expenditure has been more modest so far than the Aberdeen Inverness Improvements Project, the resignalling work was part of capacity and reliability enhancements to the same end, an hourly HML service (alternating 1 train per 2 hours to Edinburgh/ Glasgow).

As this is the speculative thread, I think in terms of more joined up thinking across government having every ScotRail train stop at every station in the Cairngorms National Park could change the dynamics of the park for the better, making the currently more outlying villages more attractive and spreading about housing demand rather than driving over development in Aviemore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So your starting point for "service reductions" would be a new hourly Glasgow - Dundee service as well as an hourly Highland Main Line service (which would be the most frequent that the line had ever had, as far as I am aware)...

The proposed timetable, once you add the LNER in, is roughly hourly with a few gaps:

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/assets/download_ct/20210820/Ecey_7a7-2sbB_7KyRDiV4sNkBKc1zvrOnAAYtQg_jM/may_22_-_inverness_-_central_belt_timetable.pdf

I'm just proposing regularising it. I suppose you could regularise it to 0.5tph. If you did that you'd want to portion work to/from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[adrock1976]

Sounds lovely in theory, sure, but what actual proposals would you have? The network is pretty much "hub and spoke" around Glasgow and "hub and spoke" around Edinburgh - the only real interchanges you'd have would be between Inverness services at Perth, but that's pretty minor overall. There's not a lot of places where people would be making connections.





So your starting point for "service reductions" would be a new hourly Glasgow - Dundee service as well as an hourly Highland Main Line service (which would be the most frequent that the line had ever had, as far as I am aware)...



Again, as per above, an hourly service on the Highland Main Line isn't a reduction...



...not is an additional bi-hourly Glasgow - Dundee service...



...or a new station at Bridge Of Earn...



...or hourly trains from Balmossie to Golf Street.

I like the idea of the thread, I think that there are some discussions that we could have about how to squeeze more from less (e.g. before electrification I might have suggested that some of the Glasgow - Inverness/ Aberdeen trains pick up a handful of stops to replace off peak Glasgow - Dunblane services, but putting additional local stops onto a duty run by old HSTs in lieu of a modern EMU would be a very bad move!)...

...maybe there are some places where a service could be cut off peak to free up a unit or two - e.g. Gorebridge to Tweedbank is around an hour for the round trip, so you could cut the frequency south of Gorebridge to hourly off peak and free up a DMU...

...maybe the number of Fife Circle trains to Edinburgh in the morning peak could be thinned out by terminating some at Inverkeithing (to run into the Dockyard siding, where they'd reverse, with passengers boarding the next train from Inverkeithing to Edinburgh)...

...maybe you could terminate a few Gourock/ Weymss Bay/ Largs/ Ardrossan services in the sidings east of Paisley station so that these towns get a good enough service as far as Paisley but with fewer trains carrying on into Glasgow...

...I'm not saying that my suggestions would be popular, but there seems to be no point in having a thread about "service reductions" where people just suggest enhancements and new stations...

Regarding Perth - Inverness, I believe it has long been an aspiration of Transport Scotland to have a 60 minute frequency similar to Aberdeen (pre pandemic).

Regarding Bridge of Earn, it would have to reopen for when Perth is remodelled before the overhead wires are installed, therefore a handy place for trains from Edinburgh via Fife to get as close to Perth as possible.

Regarding the comment Balmossie - Golf Street, no additional trains would be required - it is simply making them request stops with all of the local trains calling if necessary.

Regarding Paisley, I have thought about terminating some trains there, but obviously not the ones that provide connections with the ferries.

 

[tbtc]

The proposed timetable, once you add the LNER in, is roughly hourly with a few gaps:

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/assets/download_ct/20210820/Ecey_7a7-2sbB_7KyRDiV4sNkBKc1zvrOnAAYtQg_jM/may_22_-_inverness_-_central_belt_timetable.pdf

I'm just proposing regularising it. I suppose you could regularise it to 0.5tph. If you did that you'd want to portion work to/from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Regarding Perth - Inverness, I believe it has long been an aspiration of Transport Scotland to have a 60 minute frequency similar to Aberdeen (pre pandemic)

An average hourly frequency is the best that the line will ever have had and the best that it can realistically aspire to (both in terms of infrastructure and actual demand - unless you're going to throw a lot of money at doubling more of it or significantly reduce fares) - the single track sections and the low frequency of stops at certain intermediate stations probably means that clock face hourly would be too aspirational...

...but my point is that a thread about "service reductions" seems to start off with "Let's Given The HML The Best Service It's Ever Had"

Regarding Bridge of Earn, it would have to reopen for when Perth is remodelled before the overhead wires are installed, therefore a handy place for trains from Edinburgh via Fife to get as close to Perth as possible

It seems a reasonable place for a station to be built (especially if you have a good size of car park, given the potential railheading), but again spending all of this money on a new station isn't really in the spirit of making savings - people seem to want to improve services and introduce new stations - maybe we need another thread about "Improvements" for ScotRail instead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems a reasonable place for a station to be built (especially if you have a good size of car park, given the potential railheading), but again spending all of this money on a new station isn't really in the spirit of making savings - people seem to want to improve services and introduce new stations - maybe we need another thread about "Improvements" for ScotRail instead?

To be fair a sensible approach is to make the railway more remunerative as a whole project. Part of this will involve reduction and closure of some services/stations. However, at the same time, income can be increased by targetted capital projects.

A random example of this might be extending some platforms so a halved frequency of double-length trains can be operated on a given route. Or a new fleet of DOO* capable trains.

* It's an example, not a proposal for ScotRail - please no DOO debate!

 

[hexagon789]

This is a speculative thread to run alongside "Scotrail - Post Covid Consultation - Service Reductions": https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...service-reductions.221416/page-9#post-5280201

As a starter for 10, if frequencies are to be cut, a Takt should be considered - clockface timetables (even if only some of them extend to e.g. Wick) and connections should be planned properly.

For example:



Yes, that isn't great. A logical Takt would have something more local (to Dundee perhaps) run hourly ahead of the HML service, which itself should do Stirling and Perth then all stations to Inverness (maybe alternate some of them, but keep it simple and consistent). The express would have caught up by Stirling or Perth and would provide quality interchange.

This of course only works if the timetables are regular and clockface.

Another thing worth doing is perhaps having two hourly (again clockface) Edinburgh-HML and Glasgow-HML, and in the opposite hour Glasgow-Stirling/Edinburgh-Stirling, timed to connect in both directions. Or even consider using 2-car units and portion-working, giving hourly to both.

I've said this before, but ScotRail could do with referring to the original 'Tartan Taktfahrplan' - the raison d'etre was actually funnily enough service cuts due to the early 1980s recession.

The reduction in services led to a desire to improve connectivity and this is what the original Tartan Takt accomplished and a damn' sight better than today's mess.

I was surprised when I was recently checking some journeys that so many long-distance/regional routes don't connect properly if at all, made all the more acute by the current service reduction.

The diagram of the original takt makes for interesting dissection even if it looks rather complicated to start with.

(Don't know if it would be relevant to this thread but I can post the diagram if its of interest?)

This of course only works if the timetables are regular and clockface.

Which is a huge bugbear of mine, I appreciate different calling patterns are necessary at times but as an example the departure times off a major station such as Glasgow Queen Street to either Inverness or Aberdeen are so variable - anything from XX00 to XX10 or XX38 to XX43. Coming back its of course worse and it wasn't too many years ago it was very regularised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Don't know if it would be relevant to this thread but I can post the diagram if its of interest?)

I'd certainly be interested to see it - cheers.

 

[hexagon789]

I'd certainly be interested to see it - cheers.

Applies to the May 1982 timetable, there were some alterations made in May 1983.

 

[backontrack]

Having 170s to Inverness and Aberdeen is really not the end of the world. They are still, at the end of the day, just trains.

To be fair a sensible approach is to make the railway more remunerative as a whole project. Part of this will involve reduction and closure of some services/stations. However, at the same time, income can be increased by targetted capital projects.

A random example of this might be extending some platforms so a halved frequency of double-length trains can be operated on a given route. Or a new fleet of DOO* capable trains.

* It's an example, not a proposal for ScotRail - please no DOO debate!

And I'll add to this that the postcovid state of play will inform that resource allocation. A shift towards leisure travel leaves a balance to be resolved, and that's an opportunity. It also makes marketing more important.

There's about ten stations that ScotRail could clip from the network if it needed to free up the money - perhaps Holyrood should look at binning Achanalt, Altnabreac, Barry Links, Beasdale, Breich, Culrain, Duncraig, Golf Street, Kildonan and Locheilside. There needs to be a payoff, but none of these stations could sustain a bus stop. Rural railways have a future in Scotland, and we need to make the most of them - consulting with community rail partnerships might be a productive enterprise for the Scottish Government.

As for the Central Belt, the key is to reduce frequencies sensibly without wrecking existing service patterns, such as happened in Fife. Timetabling issues are also important - the Gourock and Wemyss Bay trains shouldn't be simultaneous!

 

[HST43257]

If we are thinking Inter7City (and some other services on their routes) clock face timetable, here's an idea I came up with a few days ago:

IC1: 1tph Edinburgh to Aberdeen calling at Leuchars, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven, Aberdeen, Inverurie, Insch, Huntly Keith, Elgin, Forres, Nairn, Dalcross and Inverness.

IC2: 1tph Glasgow to Aberdeen calling at Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Carnoustie, Arbroath, Montrose and Aberdeen.

IC3: 1tp2h Edinburgh to Inverness calling at Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Perth, Dunkeld & Birnam, Pitochry, Kingussie, Aviemore, Carrbridge and Inverness.

IC4: 1tp2h Glasgow to Inverness calling at Stirling, Dunblane, Gleneagles, Perth, Pitochry, Blair Atholl, Dalwhinnie, Newtonmore, Kingussie, Aviemore and Inverness.

IC5: 1tp2h Glasgow to Dundee calling at Stirling, Dunblane, Gleneagles, Perth, Invergowrie and Dundee.

RE1: 1tph Edinburgh to Perth calling at Edinburgh Gateway, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank and Perth.

RE2: 1tph Edinburgh to Arbroath calling at Edinburgh Gateway, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank, Cupar, Leuchars, Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Carnoustie and Arbroath.

HC1: 2tph Montrose to Inverurie calling at Laurencekirk, Stonehaven, Portlethen, Aberdeen, Dyce, Kintore and Inverurie.

HC2: 1tph Elgin to Inverness calling at Forres, Nairn, Dalcross and Inverness.



Note: Edinburgh refers to Waverley and Haymarket. All trains would call at both.

Set calling patterns in the off peak, easier for the customer and operator.

I've included the likes of Dalcross because I saw it as being for a few years time. But since SR Clockface came up, there it is.

If I was making covid cuts, I'd leave out IC5, RE1 and HC2. On IC2, add a 1tp2h Invergowrie call, and take out a Carnoustie call in those hours so the same path is more or less kept. On IC3, add a Ladybank stop.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

IC3: 1tp2h Edinburgh to Inverness calling at Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Perth, Dunkeld & Birnam, Pitochry, Kingussie, Carrbridge and Inverness.

IC4: 1tp2h Glasgow to Inverness calling at Stirling, Dunblane, Gleneagles, Perth, Pitochry, Blair Atholl, Dalwhinnie, Newtonmore, Kingussie, Aviemore and Inverness.

Cutting the service at Aviemore to every two hours with no service to Edinburgh seems a bit extreme!

 

[backontrack]

Cutting the service at Aviemore to every two hours with no service to Edinburgh seems a bit extreme!

Surely a mistake?

 

[HST43257]

Cutting the service at Aviemore to every two hours with no service to Edinburgh seems a bit extreme!

Oops, my mistake! Will edit now

 

[Falcon1200]

...maybe you could terminate a few Gourock/ Weymss Bay/ Largs/ Ardrossan services in the sidings east of Paisley station so that these towns get a good enough service as far as Paisley but with fewer trains carrying on into Glasgow...

I doubt that would save anything; By the time a train had terminated at Gilmour St and ran into a loop or siding it could almost be in Central, given that the running time Paisley-Central non-stop is 10 minutes. And there is no shortage of platforms at Central, with the two additionals built for the Glasgow Airport service (ha ha). Plus as discussed elsewhere, forcing people to change trains (especially so close to destination) would be very unpopular.

Which is a huge bugbear of mine, I appreciate different calling patterns are necessary at times but as an example the departure times off a major station such as Glasgow Queen Street to either Inverness or Aberdeen are so variable - anything from XX00 to XX10 or XX38 to XX43.

I agree 100%. Something else I would like to see is simplification of timetables, for example my local line has (except now for the evenings....) a half-hourly service 7 days a week, yet the Sunday timings from both ends are totally different, for no obvious reason, which has not always been the case.

 

[snookertam]

For the West of Scotland, where service reductions are necessary, might they have been better reverting to previous timetables, similar to what they did in Central Scotland. So for example:

2tph semi fast Central to Ayr - Paisley, Johnstone, Kilwinning then all stops

1tph Central to Ardrossan, all stops from Paisley

1tph semi fast Largs - Paisley, johnstone, Milliken Pk, Glengarnock then all stops.

Only possible reason I can think for doing what they’ve done is that it’s intended as temporary and the fast services can easily be reinserted later.

As for the Glasgow South Electrics and Anniesland via Maryhill, I think they need to work on the principle that day time services should be no less than every 30 minutes. I’d suggest the long standing pre covid timetables should be reinstated and some of the peak extras on the south side be removed - The Neilston express for example - and run the rest at peak capacity. Easier said than done of course.

Main thing I would point out is that a £40 million gap seems to need to be bridged here. There are a number of ways that can potentially be done, it doesn’t just half to be cuts. Growing revenue to cover the shortfall should also be considered.

 

[HSTEd]

At the risk of getting my head ripped off.

BR experience is that more, shorter, trains is better for generating custom than fewer, longer, trains.

So isn't the obvious solution to axe the HST sets and simply use DMUs instead?

You could also consider the three letter acronym related to staffing that I hesitate to speak because the moderators will likely not appreciate the reaction!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So isn't the obvious solution to axe the HST sets and simply use DMUs instead?

No, because there aren't enough of them. The biggest problem with Class 170 is that they didn't build twice as many.

 

[alangla]

No, because there aren't enough of them. The biggest problem with Class 170 is that they didn't build twice as many.

Huh? Loads of them left the fleet when the HSTs arrived (according to Wikipedia down to 34 from 55 originally). There was more than enough of them up to a couple of years ago & bear in mind the E&G and SDA ones were released by the class 385s, though obviously the Borders has been added to their list of routes.

I do wonder if some of these proposals, especially the HML ones, are actually aimed at standing down HSTs in favour of more units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Huh? Loads of them left the fleet when the HSTs arrived (according to Wikipedia down to 34 from 55 originally)

Yes, they've left the fleet, and the TOCs that have them now won't be giving them back, and nor should they. ScotRail made their bed and now have to lie in it.

I do wonder if some of these proposals, especially the HML ones, are actually aimed at standing down HSTs in favour of more units.

Or using them less intensively given their unreliability.

 

[HSTEd]

No, because there aren't enough of them. The biggest problem with Class 170 is that they didn't build twice as many.

In the long run an order for two or three car 197s would undoubtedly be cheaper, especially if they were fitted for the forbidden three letter acronym