The launch of a regular E-W services/historically, how were services launched as the railways were newly built?

[70014IronDuke]

(Mods - this is both a modern operating subject and historical - but I put it in this forum because I'd like both the historical and modern to be discussed in the same thread. If you disagree, well, do as you will.)

These questions have been prompted by the re-opening of Bicester to Bletchley/MK and the historical precedence.

I must say, I'm shocked by the huge gap in time between the route being handed over and the still-to-be launched service. IT seems an awful lot of investment essentially standing idle.

I had wondered about this question before the route was delivered as ready for service: Would the operators wait until a full service could be delivered, or would they lauch a limited service and 'fill in the gaps' later.

It seems the powers at be are going for a 'big bang' opening. I can see this fits in with the modern day fascnination for PR, but it still begs the question why? What the disadvantages related to starting with, say, a half service, if you have the crews trained and stock available, and then actually earning revenue?

Which also brings me to the historical reality. When, say, the GC extension to London was built, did the newly named GC run trains – passenger or freight - part way (Nottingham – Leicester? Nottingham – Rugby?) before the full lenght launch?

Unlike the Bicester-Bletchley re-opening (25 miles?), Nottingham to Aylesbury seems an awful lot of track, signalling (90 something miles?) to install and manpower to train and then wait until the entire route to be cleared.

But this question applies to any route from 1823-4 onwards, if anyone knows.

 

[mrcheek]

Im sure I recall stories of trains being sent out along new lines whilst they were still finishing off the last bit of track at the other end!

 

[Western Gaffer]

Im sure I recall stories of trains being sent out along new lines whilst they were still finishing off the last bit of track at the other end!

Is it just me who's put in mind of this?

[image of famous real-time track-laying scene from 'The Wrong Trousers']

 

[Gloster]

The company could not start public passenger services until the Inspector had visited and indicated that he was satisfied, although I don’t think that it had to wait until I think it received the certificate from the Board of Trade was actually received. Sometimes the Inspector would indicate that the line could not open until certain work had be done: I think that if it was minor the opening could take place once the Board had been informed that the work had been done, but in many cases it would have to wait until the Inspector re-inspected. The Inspectors did get their skates on so it would not be a long wait.

I believe that, in general, goods traffic could start before inspection, although woe betide the company if there was an accident due to something that the Inspector would have spotted. There may have been some restrictions, such as no accompanying drovers even if they didn’t pay. (I am not so certain about goods.)

However, the company wanted to get a return on its investment as soon as possible, so there would rarely be a delay once authority had given permission to operate. Sometimes operation was limited, due to things like a shortage of rolling stock or some restriction imposed by the Imspector, but at least some money was coming in.

It was not uncommon for trains, in particular goods ones, to operate over part of a route while the rest was not yet finished: it would offend the Victorian mind to see capital lying idle. However, there were sometimes clauses in the Act that insisted that no part of a line could be opened before the whole line could. This was because railway politics meant that sometimes a line being promoted would include a section they didn’t want to build in order to ensure that their Act was the one passed in order to get the bit they did want to build passed. Then build the bit you want and apply to abandon (without building) the bit you didn’t want.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I have certainly also thought that there is an unnecessary delay in commencing bringing in revenue with newly opened railways. You would think that there would be pressure to start remunerative services! The Northumberland line has reopened with only a couple of the stations ready / open which imo is the correct approach; it would be nonsensical to delay the whole opening while one or two intermediate stops have the finishing touches applied.

 

[alistairlees]

I think this is just private sector vs public sector. In the private sector there’s pressure to get a return on investment. In the public sector there isn’t. Nobody ever got sacked for not doing anything, or for being really slow. So, guess what?

 

[zwk500]

I had wondered about this question before the route was delivered as ready for service: Would the operators wait until a full service could be delivered, or would they lauch a limited service and 'fill in the gaps' later.

It seems the powers at be are going for a 'big bang' opening. I can see this fits in with the modern day fascnination for PR, but it still begs the question why? What the disadvantages related to starting with, say, a half service, if you have the crews trained and stock available, and then actually earning revenue?

I'd argue it's obviously the reverse - East-West rail's stated objective is to connect Oxford and Cambridge. It's had trains on the Oxford-Bicester section for quite some time. The next section to open is to MK, services to Bedford need a further upgrade to get more than 1tph, and then the section from Bedford to Cambridge needs to be built. That looks to me like the smallest stages you would reasonably construct the line in.

Which also brings me to the historical reality. When, say, the GC extension to London was built, did the newly named GC run trains – passenger or freight - part way (Nottingham – Leicester? Nottingham – Rugby?) before the full lenght launch?

Unlike the Bicester-Bletchley re-opening (25 miles?), Nottingham to Aylesbury seems an awful lot of track, signalling (90 something miles?) to install and manpower to train and then wait until the entire route to be cleared.

But this question applies to any route from 1823-4 onwards, if anyone knows.

It's a bit of mix and match, from the historical records. Some lines opened as one thing because their two ends were the principal traffic generators and there wasn't much point opening halfway. Some lines started from both ends and used horse-drawn coaches to fill in gaps while major engineering works like viaducts or tunnels were finished, and some were planned as a 'phased' opening with a branch opening in sections successively away from the junction.

 

[Gloster]

I personally think that one of the reasons for such delays is that there are now so many parties involved whose every action has to be coordinated. None of them want to be the one to whom a delay is attributed so everybody stretches their timescale and this all contributes to the opening date being put as late as possible. There is no incentive to push things beyond this relaxed timetable and no incentive to open early, which would be difficult to organise because there are so many parties. O, for a single guiding and coordinating mind!

 

[geoffk]

I personally think that one of the reasons for such delays is that there are now so many parties involved whose every action has to be coordinated. None of them want to be the one to whom a delay is attributed so everybody stretches their timescale and this all contributes to the opening date being put as late as possible. There is no incentive to push things beyond this relaxed timetable and no incentive to open early, which would be difficult to organise because there are so many parties. O, for a single guiding and coordinating mind!

I suppose there are so many contracts now, with lawyers and accountants at every interface.

 

[Magdalia]

These questions have been prompted by the re-opening of Bicester to Bletchley/MK and the historical precedence.

From an East Anglian perspective there is no historical precedent. East West Rail is the first attempt to build a long distance east-west route in a co-ordinated way.

In Victorian times most of the cross country lines were constructed as branches of the main lines to/from London. Cross country routes took a long time to evolve through joining up these branches. For example, the predecessor of East West Rail was 2 LNWR branches from Bletchley, to Oxford and Cambridge, not a through route.

The earliest cross country link was the LNWR's Northampton-Peterborough branch joining with the Great Eastern's Ely-Peterborough branch at Peterborough East (both railways got to Peterborough before the Great Northern). This is the nearest there was to an attempt to establish an east-west long distance route.

I'd argue it's obviously the reverse - East-West rail's stated objective is to connect Oxford and Cambridge. It's had trains on the Oxford-Bicester section for quite some time. The next section to open is to MK, services to Bedford need a further upgrade to get more than 1tph, and then the section from Bedford to Cambridge needs to be built. That looks to me like the smallest stages you would reasonably construct the line in.

And I'd agree.

The company could not start public passenger services until the Inspector had visited and indicated that he was satisfied, although I don’t think that it had to wait until I think it received the certificate from the Board of Trade was actually received.

There has been nearly 200 years of advances in safety requirements since.

I suspect that there is also increased caution now following the Thameslink 2018 fiasco.

 

[saismee]

I suspect that there is also increased caution now following the Thameslink 2018 fiasco.

Could you elaborate (or better yet: provide a like so we don't get off-topic)?

 

[Magdalia]

Could you elaborate (or better yet: provide a like so we don't get off-topic)?

Great Northern, Southern and Thameslink trains cancelled

Govia Thameslink Railway blames "logistical reasons" for disruption on its services.

www.bbc.co.uk

A rail firm cancelled dozens of trains - hours after its new timetable began.

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) rescheduled every service on its Great Northern, Thameslink and Southern franchise as part of an overhaul billed as the biggest in the UK.

It said introducing the new timetable was a "significant logistical challenge" and apologised for "any inconvenience caused" to passengers.

It was unable to confirm how many trains had been cancelled on Sunday.

A GTR spokesman added: "We are introducing the biggest change to rail timetables in a generation and, as we have been informing passengers, we expect some disruption to services in the initial stages.

"This is a significant logistical challenge as we make rolling incremental changes across more than 3,000 daily services."

He added the timetable changes would mean a 13% increase in services across the GTR network.

The RMT and Aslef unions said they understood the disruption was because there were not enough fully-trained drivers.

There was a very long discussion here:

Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

Mod note: Due to the significant length of the existing thread in Allocations & Timetables regarding the Thameslink timetable introduction, and also due to the fact that discussion on the same issues was beginning to duplicate across this thread too, the forum team have decided to use this...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Dr Hoo]

A shortage of ‘fully trained’ staff (stock and routes) - basically drivers on a DOO service like Thameslink, was the key issue back in 2018.

Has it been confirmed that Chilterns now have a full cohort of staff trained through to Milton Keynes, all the necessary units sitting spare and ready to go in the depot and any other preliminaries (such as fares databases) completed?

 

[Vexed]

The Northumberland line has reopened with only a couple of the stations ready / open which imo is the correct approach; it would be nonsensical to delay the whole opening while one or two intermediate stops have the finishing touches applied.

It's certainly good that it's opened partially, but these pretty small stations that are still closed are way off the scale of Reading or London Bridge* recent (re)builds, so shouldn't be this slow. The issue here is the slow pace of progress and delays, some of which is due to keeping costs low, but some of it is due to reasons that seem spurious to people outside (or even inside...) the project.

I'm not saying go back to the 1800s, but we do need to get a move on and work out how we can get things done quickly without breaking the budget.

*I can't remember how well these kept to time or budget, but my point still stands that when comparing new rural stations to rebuilds of busy existing stations the new rural ones should be much quicker to open!

 

[Carlisle]

I suspect that there is also increased caution now following the Thameslink 2018 fiasco

Maybe, although there appears to have been delays to the completion of almost every type of sizeable UK rail improvement or modernisation scheme since COVID.

 

[The exile]

It's certainly good that it's opened partially, but these pretty small stations that are still closed are way off the scale of Reading or London Bridge* recent (re)builds, so shouldn't be this slow. The issue here is the slow pace of progress and delays, some of which is due to keeping costs low, but some of it is due to reasons that seem spurious to people outside (or even inside...) the project.

I'm not saying go back to the 1800s, but we do need to get a move on and work out how we can get things done quickly without breaking the budget.

*I can't remember how well these kept to time or budget, but my point still stands that when comparing new rural stations to rebuilds of busy existing stations the new rural ones should be much quicker to open!

With new stations (which those on the Northumberland line effectively are), there is considerably more interface with the “outside world” - in the sense of brand new access points, services etc which will often be subject to timescales which the railway can’t influence.

 

[Magdalia]

It's certainly good that it's opened partially, but these pretty small stations that are still closed are way off the scale of Reading or London Bridge* recent (re)builds, so shouldn't be this slow. The issue here is the slow pace of progress and delays, some of which is due to keeping costs low, but some of it is due to reasons that seem spurious to people outside (or even inside...) the project.

I'm not saying go back to the 1800s, but we do need to get a move on and work out how we can get things done quickly without breaking the budget.

*I can't remember how well these kept to time or budget, but my point still stands that when comparing new rural stations to rebuilds of busy existing stations the new rural ones should be much quicker to open!

Keeping to time is one of the key ways of keeping to budget. Delay adds costs by needing labour for longer and by giving inflation the opportunity to affect input costs.

The infrastructure parts of Thameslink 2018 were done very well: not just London Bridge but also Bermondsey, Borough Market and the Canal Tunnel.

With new stations (which those on the Northumberland line effectively are), there is considerably more interface with the “outside world” - in the sense of brand new access points, services etc which will often be subject to timescales which the railway can’t influence.

The interfaces with other parts of the railway industry are a key factor. On a small scale, Cambridge South will be late opening because other parts of the railway screwed up on the timetable and the Cambridge resignalling.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Some lines started from both ends and used horse-drawn coaches to fill in gaps while major engineering works like viaducts or tunnels were finished, and some were planned as a 'phased' opening with a branch opening in sections successively away from the junction.

Both the Great Western and London & Birmingham did this, with a horse drawn link around the still-incomplete Box and Kilsby tunnels.

In "Around the World in Eighty Days" Phileas Fogg, who is inspired by a newspaper report that the opening of the Bombay to Calcutta Railway has made such a journey possible, has to buy an elephant to cover an uncompleted 50-mile gap in that line between Kholby and Allahabad. (An early victim of "fake news!")

The GNR took longer to build the "Towns" line (the present main line) than the Lincolnshire Loop (via Boston), so ran trains by the loop for several months.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

In "Around the World in Eighty Days" Phileas Fogg, who is inspired by a newspaper report that the opening of the Bombay to Calcutta Railway has made such a journey possible, has to buy an elephant to cover an uncompleted 50-mile gap in that line between Kholby and Allahabad. (An early victim of "fake news!")

Does this mean that in Bicester the price of elephants is currently at an all time high

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'd argue it's obviously the reverse - East-West rail's stated objective is to connect Oxford and Cambridge. It's had trains on the Oxford-Bicester section for quite some time. The next section to open is to MK, services to Bedford need a further upgrade to get more than 1tph, and then the section from Bedford to Cambridge needs to be built. That looks to me like the smallest stages you would reasonably construct the line in.

Your answer is perfectly logical - except it's not the one to my question.

I'm not talking about the construction phases (and yes, I know Chiltern did Oxford - Bicester some years ago).

I'm talking about the service introduction. Put this way: I believe the plan to start with is to have 2 TPH serving Oxford - MK.

But it's taking forever to train up the crews. After all, the line was handed over last autumn.

So why not start the service earlier, with 1 TPH, as soon as enough crews are trained, and work up the timetable with more trains in phases, as enough crews (and/or stock) become available?

Alternatively, at least in theory, they could start a limited service over part of the route, eg MK to Winslow - as I tried to illustrate in my example regarding the GC London extension by asking if they ran Nottingham - Leicester GC trains before the entire line was open to Ayelsbury (or wherever it joine the existing Met route back in 1899).

In truth, I don't think a short section opening to Winslow is worthwhile in the case of Oxford to MK, which is why I write 'in theory' here.

However, I find it scandalous that some trains are not already running on the new section, personally - all that investment sitting there now earning nowt.

As @Gloster writes "it would offend the Victorian mind to see capital lying idle" - I guess that's showing my age

After all, by now it must be that crews who have never driven a revenue earning train over the section have to do refresher courses to keep up route knowledge!

 

[chris2]

When are the new services due to start? Are the works at Oxford station on the critical path?

 

[zwk500]

But it's taking forever to train up the crews. After all, the line was handed over last autumn.

So why not start the service earlier, with 1 TPH, as soon as enough crews are trained, and work up the timetable with more trains in phases, as enough crews (and/or stock) become available?

Presumably because the critical mass between having enough crews for 1tph and enough for 2tph is not very wide?

Alternatively, at least in theory, they could start a limited service over part of the route, eg MK to Winslow - as I tried to illustrate in my example regarding the GC London extension by asking if they ran Nottingham - Leicester GC trains before the entire line was open to Ayelsbury (or wherever it joine the existing Met route back in 1899).

Can't turn round at Winslow, so that's that one out. You could turn it round at Claydon but that's largely pointless.

However, I find it scandalous that some trains are not already running on the new section, personally - all that investment sitting there now earning nowt.

It's had trains. And it's investment for 100 years, it can wait a few month to get it all up and running.

As @Gloster writes "it would offend the Victorian mind to see capital lying idle" - I guess that's showing my age

Of course, the Victorian mind didn't give 2 figs to running a public service. Opening a crap 1tph that's cancelled ad-hoc while they scramble for drivers is not just a poor look, it's a advert against the railway. Keeping one's powder dry until you can run the full service to the advertised times is worth it in the context of introducing a new service. Today's regulatory requirements for safety, training and crew management are a completely different world to the victorian methods of working, where route learning, as is the standard of passenger care!

I know some people on here think any train is automatically a good train, but in reality most punters want the trains on time, when they are told they will be there. Trains that don't run, or arrive late, are reasons to get in the car instead.

 

[Annetts key]

I believe some lines were opened with a shuttle service, working short of the current end of line. Sometimes even working on only one of a planned double track railway.

These days, unless a line has been planned to open in sections and there are the appropriate infrastructure facilities and suitable train and crew arrangements already in place, it's not very likely to happen.

This century in more than one place, we've seen timetables ready and new stations 99% complete but a passenger service has been held back until everything is fully ready.

I agree it's rather annoying, but that's how it is now.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It's had trains. And it's investment for 100 years, it can wait a few month to get it all up and running.

But exteremely annoying fior any potential users who might make use of it in that period. If I had to make a journey between Oxford and a WCML destination in the next month or so I would be very annoyed that the railways was sitting there ready for use but no service was running.

Delays in introducing a service mean inconvenience for potential users. A long-promised direct service between my city and my father's city was finally introduced, ten years after it was supposed to have been - and six months after my father died)

And when my children were at the pushchair stage, i was promised lifts were going to be installed at my local station. They were eventually installed, two years after my youngest got his driving licence.

 

[Zomboid]

Personally I want the service to start yesterday so I can use it, and it's not a good look that it's taking so long after the line was completed to get services running, bit I suspect it's only that likes of us who even know about it. So better overall to launch the service when everything is ready to do it properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I want the service to start yesterday so I can use it, and it's not a good look that it's taking so long after the line was completed to get services running, bit I suspect it's only that likes of us who even know about it. So better overall to launch the service when everything is ready to do it properly.

Same. I too want to use it - though my main use-case will involve the evenings, so the likely "soft launch" if one was done is unlikely to be useful as I doubt it would involve the 23xx departures.

I am similarly surprised they aren't doing a soft launch of say two hourly 9am-5pm Mon-Fri or something, though. They must surely have one diagram's worth of staff ready soon.

 

[Zomboid]

similarly surprised they aren't doing a soft launch of say two hourly 9am-5pm Mon-Fri or something, though

I think that would be a sufficiently useless offering to put people off using it when it does start properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that would be a sufficiently useless offering to put people off using it when it does start properly.

That may well be why they aren't bothering and look to be going for a "big bang" launch of the full half hourly service.

 

[Zomboid]

That may well be why they aren't bothering and look to be going for a "big bang" launch of the full half hourly service.

I think what we'll see when they launch is the full 2tph all day service with Chiltern liveried 196s and lots of fanfare. It'll probably break a banner at Winslow station and the transport sectary of the week will be leaning out of the cab window.

There'll probably be cake.

 

[Stephen1001]

A relatively recent (by railway standards) example where a route opened in part: the Heathrow branch. Part of the tunnel collapsed during construction, but instead of delaying the start of Heathrow Express beyond January 1998, services operated to a temporary Heathrow Junction station for five months, with buses taking passengers the rest of the way. Obviously it wouldn't have been planned this way, but it does illustrate that partial openings using available resources - and indeed dedicated road transport to fill the gap - aren't entirely confined to the 19th century.