Cutting less used stops in the new franchise?

[whole diary]

[anthony215]

Since when did the hst's serve any of the Swanline stations. I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have got the right mix of stopping at Neath etc although I do think trains could be sped up by not stopping at didcot and perhaps at Swindon as well especially when the new extra services start.

[bigdaz]

Please don't think that this is going off topic... I hope to make a valuable link...


In rural Hampshire, many former buses have been replaced by taxibuses - and there are two sorts.

Firstly, there are services which run to a dedicated timetable - just like a bus - but are operated with much smaller vehicles - cars or people carriers or minibuses. 

Secondly, there are services which are scheduled to run on certain days between x and y and various areas are outlined as being served e.g. on Tues, Thurs Sats a taxi bus will run between x and y and will make picks in a, b, c, d,.  However, and obviously NOT so convenient, these services have to be pre-booked 24 hours in advance.

AND SO MY POINT AND LINK TO THE THREAD

Could TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) begin making contracts with taxi companies in very rural areas and then a ticket could be bought e.g. Hanborough to Reading    route taxi + Oxford and then the passenger turns up at Hanborough according to a published timetable - is taxied to Oxford for train connection and vice-versa.  The taxi driver could also offer the opportunity to carry heavy backage - especially useful for disabled or vulnerable travellers.

[LiskeardRich]

I agree with most of the points but here is a minor issue:

Perranwell has a brilliant service on the branch but if you want to connect at Truro  it is useless. It should be the other hourly train that calls [the --10 rather than --40]. One only has to look at table 39, it is almost like it was done deliberately. Sadly many in the village  including myself now go to Truro especially if you are going westwards. I have contacted FGW^▸ (First Great Western) about this on occasions and never got a sensible reply. Seems a simple thing to sort out and annoying as the train goes though the village.

I always use the service thats just after 00 from penryn, and the staff always seem to stop on request anyway from what ive seen. Maybe down to the staff on the day though.

[grahame]

Please don't think that this is going off topic... I hope to make a valuable link...

It does, indeed - it raises the whole question of integrated transport, and bearing in mind that most FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train users connect in or out of something else, I've used it as one of the seeds for a whole new thread -

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10051.0

[FarWestJohn]

The 0801 from Penryn is scheduled to stop at Perranwell at 0807. But sadly all day from the Penryn 0904 all trains whistle through Perranwell at --10 with no scheduled stop until the evening. It is only the --40  with lousy connections at Truro that is timetabled to stop on request.

[ellendune]

When adding new trains it might be acceptable that the new trains miss some less used stops.

[Btline]

Indeed, after Crossrail, they'll be plenty of Thames Turbos that can't fit anywhere else. These can be used to improve local services, while HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)/IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) can actually stretch their legs and long suffering commuters don't have to stop every 5 minutes.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

For once I agree with our Welsh contributor in his reference to station footfall. The number of station entrances and exits is not necessarily a good reference as to the financial viability of a station. At my home station of Hanborough, 10 years ago footfall was much less than now but also the average fare per journey was also very low as the vast majority of journeys were between Hanborough and Oxford - just 7  rail miles long. Today the number of users has increased considerably but whereas the journeys were short distance, the majority of journeys are now by daily commuters to London. Many people who in the past used rail to get to Oxford do not now but drive to the Oxford Park and Ride as it is no longer possible to park at the station after 06.30 as the car park is filled by the London commuters who need to set off for work much earlier than Oxford commuters. Hanborough is therefore now a very lucrative source of revenue for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and any TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) considering responding to pleas for journeys to be a few minutes faster from Worcester by cutting out Hanborough stops would be committing financial suicide. The political outcry to local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) (a certain David Cameron) would also be significant.
Re HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), this should not be considered as just a London to Birmingham railway, it is just the first (proposed) stage of a new railway to the North and to Scotland and the North and Scotland has most to be gained from this project if it goes ahead.

[grahame]

The question on what to do at "less used stops" is - surely - to ask why are they less used, and to have informed decisions on future service level be made on the basis of those reasons.

Why may a station be "less used"?
a) Because it serves a catchment which has low travel requirements
b) Because there are no trains calling there at the time that people want to travel (for a local / regional / commuter service that means getting both ends of the day right and co-ordinated to give proper round trips)
c) Because the trains that call don't go where people want to go
d) Because the services are very infrequent compared to the length of the journey
e) Because there's a much better served station nearby
f) Because of access / parking issues at the station
g) Because people feel unsafe at the station
h) Due to lack of [easy to use] information available to potential travellers about the station and its services
i) Because the fares are too high

A single reason from the list above can lead to "low use" ... though usually multiple will apply.

Coombe Junction Halt has been quoted as an example of a less used station.  And I would guess that the following may apply:
a) Yes - Not many people live in its catchement, which is quite small anyway due to the proximity of Liskeard station. Tourist things near, though?
b) Yes - The only trains that call are within a couple of hours of each other in the morning. Day trips are not practical.
c) Yes - People wanting to go anywhere but Looe are Liskeard would need to change
d) Yes - average, one train in 6 hours. Average journey on that train - no more that 10 minutes?
e) Yes - Liskeard
f) Yes - I don't think there's a car park or bus service at all?
g) No - Not a problem, I wouldn't think
h) I don't know
i) I don't know

Melksham was also mentioned earlier in this thread as a station that has few passengers at present.  Agreed.  Why? :
a) No - The catchment is urban - around 24,000 people, and many of them commute to neighbouring rail served towns. There are also business / visitor flows into the town - but not arriving by train.
b) Yes - There is a huge gap between the train that calls at 07:17 to Chippenham and Swindon and the one that gets back at 19:11.  And it's even worse bweeen the 06:40 to Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster and Salisbury and the train that gets back from the south at 19:47.  It rules out any two-way commuting opportunities.  In addition, longer distance travellers cannot get into the station in the morning because the trains run from Westbury / Swindon before there are any useful connections, and they cannot leave after working in the town / visiting until so late that they'll be very late indeed if they're headed for home in London.
c) No - not really.  Popular destinations on this travel flow are Swindon, Trowbridge, Chippenham and Salisbury, which are directly served (alas - nothing comes BACK from  Salisbury). Other flows are to Bath, Bristol, Reading, London, Oxford and Southampton - all possible with an easy change.
d) Yes - the same average as Coombe with one train in 6 hours - but average joureney times are probably more like 20 minutes that 10.
e) Not really - it's a 20 pound taxi fare to Chippenham, and those of us with cars tend to use Chippenham, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury or Andover - but by necessity, rather than by choice.
f) No - there is currently sufficient car parking but only for the current level of service / use
g) Not really - although the station is in the back of an industrial area which concerns the more nervous after dark (and there are no daylight weekday trains at all in winter!)
h) Yes - The timetable displayed at the station does not show connections to Bath and Bristol, and only shows some London connections.  Many people don't even know that Melksham station exists, and online journey planners sometime make mysterious ommissions of it.
i) Yes - in some cases. A mixed story.  If I had a lunchtime meeting in London on 19th Jan, I could travel up from Chippenham for 13.50, and return for 15.50 ... but from Melksham, I'm being quoted 73.00 (up) and 50.50 (back).   BUT -local fares are reasonable or even underpriced (should I whisper that).

Conclusion?   

Coombe Junction Halt is, and would probably remain, a "low usage" station even if many more services called there. That's not to say it would always be the case - in 10 years time, we may have an urbanised Looe Valley, with housing around all the stations, petrol at 10 pounds per litre and a through commuter rail service from Plymouth to Looe running every hour, calling at Coombe.  And it would then be used, me thinks.

Melksham, on the other hand, is principally a low use station because none of the trains that call there are at the times / offer the round trips that people need.  Many attempts at forecasting future traffic have been made. I would anticipate that the number of annual journeys made in 5 years time (after a ramp up period), given an hourly peak / 2 hourly offpeak service each way, would be about equal to the current Bradford-on-Avon figure, a town that's about half the size of Melksham.  In other words, I'm forecasting a rise from 10,000 to 370,000 (37 fold) for a 5 fold rise in trains.  Viewed another way, that's 1000 journeys per day.

By providing extra trains matters (d), (e) and (g) are also dealt with. Also (assuming the current pricing regime continues), matter (i) would also be dealt with.  Local publicity, closer working with the train operating company via the CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) (already First taking a keen interest, but much more could be done wth a quantum leap in passenger numbers), etc would also help matter (h).  Ironically - with that quantum leap in passenger numbers, parking and access could become a problem - except for the fact that there are plans afoot under the LSTF^▸ (Local Sustainable Transport Fund) to deal with this and other growth pain matters.

[Btline]

Hanborough is therefore now a very lucrative source of revenue for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and any TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) considering responding to pleas for journeys to be a few minutes faster from Worcester by cutting out Hanborough stops would be committing financial suicide. The political outcry to local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) (a certain David Cameron) would also be significant.
Re HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), this should not be considered as just a London to Birmingham railway, it is just the first (proposed) stage of a new railway to the North and to Scotland and the North and Scotland has most to be gained from this project if it goes ahead.

*Whenever I go through hardly anyone gets on/off and passenger figures must be one of the lowest for a station where InterCity trains stop.
*The new Water Eaton Parkway, with cheaper fares, faster journey times, better reliability, double the frequency and more destinations, will grab most London commuters.
*I doubt the Oxford daytrippers will return to rail as the P&R^▸ (Park and Ride) is cheaper and drops you off right outside Debenhams, not 10-15 minutes West of the centre. If they do, they'll probably use Water Eaton for the reasons above!
*Surely if FGW thought the station had any future they would have invested in it and its car park. Like Chiltern and most of their stations.
*I would happily bet that the passengers won back to the railway by a faster Worcester service would far outweigh any at Hanborough - and besides, they'll have Water Eaton, so what have they got to moan about? Think of us stuck in Worcester with a slow train!

[ChrisB]

So, ots you & who else from Worcester wants ti go to London regularly?

You have to show a denand before demanding a proper service, and I refuse to believe the demand is there. How are they getting there at the moment? Those that aren't currently using the rails, I mean....

[IndustryInsider]

Anyone else tired of this old record?   

[Btline]

So, it's you & who else from Worcester wants to go to London regularly?

I'm sure there are enough people from Hereford - Worcester - Vale of Evesham to travel to London to make a decent service worthwhile. There are plenty of lesser cities that have a decent service.

You have to show a demand before demanding a proper service, and I refuse to believe the demand is there.

If you apply that logic then no railways, motorways or any basic infrastructure would ever have been built. Of course the demand is there - have you seen the queues in Worcester - they start at 1pm (no jokes) and finish at 6pm. I have never seen such a long "rush hour".

How are they getting there at the moment? Those that aren't currently using the rails, I mean....

Commuters have deserted the line in droves - look at the car park at Warwick Parkway. People also drive to B'ham International. The fact that Worcestershire's road access is so poor should be exploited by the railways. At the moment, it isn't. So people don't travel to/from the region as much as they would, and the region's economy does not reach its full potential.

[grahame]

Anyone else tired of this old record?   

Yes ... but a new franchise IS a time to play those old records again, I think - just to make sure that we've not overlooked an old master in the back of the woodshed.

However, for a case to go forward in the new franchise, it need to be very thoroughly researched, evaluated, and tested in various ways.  That's very hard (I too used to think it was near impossible), but it can be done; it needs numbers, BCRs^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) to industry standards that work, even with "optimism factors" removed, and studies from different angle all pointing to having each element working.  And the cost / costing issue, especially in the ramp-up period - needs to be looked at.  I'm not sure that I see such data here yet - and it's a big (and expensive) task to commission and compile.

This evening, I've been drafting an initial response to rail services in my own area - looking to put forward a case that's strong and confirmed by businesses and councils in the area, that would work operationally, and does indeed offer actual figures.   It's under review at the moment - better not to spoil a cake by putting too much icing on it, me thinks.

[Lee]

a) I have seen some quite preposterous figures quoted for the cost (financial) of stopping and restarting a train.  Is it possible that the suggestion to consider cutting out stops might be to save money rather than minutes?

To be fair, though, I believe that the figures you have seen generally relate to stopping/restarting trains on fast or semi-fast intercity or regional services, which are an entirely different kettle of fish to stopping and restarting a train on a branch line where the costs of doing so are generally significantly lower.

b) There's a psychological adversity for some through passengers to being on a train that seems to "stop at all the shacks", even if in practise that costs hardsly any time.   Is it possible that this suggestion is a "we're speeding up the trains" publicity thing?  i.e. That this is an engineered / biased question that consultees are being asked?

If so, then it creates an interesting contradiction for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), because of their continuing commitment to the Community Rail concept which is designed to enable train companies to work more closely with community rail partnerships to better design services to meet local need.

Theresa Villiers recently reiterated this commitment on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) turf in October 2011 - http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20111010 :

I am delighted to be able to make this announcement on the day of First Great Western^s Community Rail Conference which will consider ways to develop the concept of Community Rail in the South West of England.  Designation means that local communities can become even more involved in how these services run and encourage train companies to provide the services local people want.

As far as branch lines go, almost all of the ones in Devon & Cornwall are Community Rail designated either as a line or service. People like RichardB and his CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) team, user groups like the Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) Rail Association, local authorities and others are closely involved with FGW in how the timetables are shaped, and each features a range of calling patterns designed to fit the markets they serve. They dont just concentrate on purely local need either - bringing in passengers from further afield is crucial to maintaining the viability of these lines, and I believe their approach reflects this.

If the passenger figures in recent times are anything to go by, they have been the authors of spectacular success, and as somebody who had my doubts on their ability to pull it off, I'm happy to salute that success.

Why change that? What's the alternative? - micro-management of those timetables by the civil servants in London running completely counter to the overall looser specification strategy the DfT says it wants to persue?

That really would be a contradiction.

c) If a heavy "yes, cut the smaller stops" response is received that certain parties could use it as an indication of public support for a closure program?

I've set out a potential scenario along these lines in my opening post, and left it down to forum readers/watchers to make their own mind up.

Axe Lelant station! Do all trains call at Carbis Bay?

Axing Lelant station would be pointless at present, as its future service pattern along with that of Lelant Saltings and Carbis Bay will be fundamentally shaped by the St Erth Park & Ride issue. See quote below:

As I understand it, St Erth Park & Ride is still going ahead to open in around two years time.   The current car park will be enlarged and there will be a brand new, large car park built on the field behind the down platform.  The intention is for there to be parking for 600 or so cars as a park and ride not just for St Ives but also for Penzance.

I don't think the work currently happening is linked to the project.

In terms of Lelant Saltings, there is no intention to close it, instead it would get a very basic one train a day type service.   Lelant would get more calls and every train would call at Carbis Bay.

Surely Coombe should be axed (or Coombe Junction Wishing well halt, or whatever it's called this week).

I can give you my opinion as to why its still there:

- No rolling stock/crewing costs to escape through closure.

- No lighting costs to escape through closure.

- Line through Coombe would have to remain to serve Moorswater, so no costs to escape there.

- Passenger trains have to reverse/change direction near there anyway, even if they dont call at the station.

- A significant sum would be payable to consultants conducting a cost/benefit analysis under the closure guidance.

- A consultation would have to be held into the closure, during which someone will undoubtably seek to frustrate the process in order to avoid a precedent being set for stations elsewhere.

- The media would descend upon Coombe, as they always seem to when they want a story regarding potential closures.