Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 16:55 28 Mar 2024
* Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
15:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
17:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
Delayed
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 17:07:28 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Taking a look at the Rail Delivery Group statement and longer term strategy  (Read 12215 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« on: December 30, 2016, 19:48:43 »

Various of the posts on changing passenger journey profiles, fare rises, overcrowding and more ... have lead me to do a bit of thinking about where we are, what has happened in the last 20 years, and where we might be headed 20 years from now.

Some lateral thinking ...

According to the ong Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy for the Rail Industry from the Rail Delivery Group dated March 2016, which appears to be the fire behind some of the smoke we're seeing saying how shocking it is that trains are so old, there were 12,968 passenger carrying vehicles at that date (page 12 - it's a long report!)

Compound growth rate in the 20 years from 1995 to 2015 was 3.8% per annum, meaning that passenger numbers in the final year of that period were 210% of what they were in the first year.  This growth is shown graphically on page 7 of the report and broadly corresponds to the growth in the number of passenger journeys over the same period which I showed at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=17797.msg206896#msg206896 .

The increase in passenger numbers has not been matched by an increase in national fleet size:
"The 110% increase in passenger-miles in the 20 years between 1995/6 and 2014/15 was achieved with an increase of just 15% in the size of the total national passenger fleet."

How has this enormous increase been achieved?   The report says
"This major increase in fleet utilisation efficiency since 1995 was principally achieved by much improved marketing and utilisation of spare off-peak capacity. In addition, changes have been made to the type, configuration and functionality of much of the national fleet. These have increased the average capacity per vehicle."
but the passenger view might well be that part of the gain has been by loading trains with passenger numbers over and above what they can really hold in comfort, and indeed the report's attitude celebrates the economic gain of getting lots more people onto only a few more trains.

I also note
"The average fare paid per passenger mile has risen by only 5% in real terms over this 20-year period."
which is pretty astonishing when you consider that loading per carriage has gone up by 82%.  It means that in real terms, income per carriage has gone up by no less than 92% in real terms.  Gosh - I would love to be able to raise the income of our hotel by 92% per room in real terms, but then (perhaps) this rise is the industry digging itself out of a hole which was highlighted by the Serpell report answering the question "which part of the network is profitable", but which looked at answers based on cutting rather than promoting growth within existing resources.

Looking ahead ...

The genie is out of the bottle! It can't keep on growing as it has done.  A further 110% passenger grown won't fit on a further 15% extra fleet - unless you get more and more people into each train by replacing large areas of seating by standing room, or increasing the aggressive price differentials between trains that are now full ("peak") and trains that still have capacity ("off peak").  Modern technology would allow for some of this, with dynamic pricing. New trains will be able to sense their loads and advise people automatically that there's "room up front".  And longer operating hours (the 24 x 7 railway) will allow even better stock utilisation; it will also overcome the industry's headache of having to 'taxi' staff out to trains parked overnight some distance from depot.  Electric trains will run somewhat faster, and have considerably shorter service times and will be much much more reliable (see page 24) - again that's a gain.  Replacement of final slam doors, and redesign will help reduce station dwell times.

The report looks at a rise over the next 20 years from 12,968 vehicles to (median case) 19,476 - that's almost exactly a 50% increase.  I conjecture that a significant proportion of than increase is necessary to overcome overcrowding that already exists - demand has been running ahead of supply.  And I note that even if growth drops from 3.8% per annum to a half of that(1.9%), 43% extra capacity over the next 20 years would be required to stand still! (Yes, in saying that I have ignored the efficiency issues described above, but then I have also ignored the increased space needed for the disabled loo ...)

With an further increase of 50% in the number of vehicles on the tracks in the next 20 years, and (we hope) with each of those vehicles spending more time running than at present, the questions of track, platform, station, and indeed access to station capacities arise.

In places, there are some simple solutions to be had to increase the capacity. 2 car trains run between stations which can all accommodate 4 or 5 car trains for starters. And you, dear Mr Rail Delivery Group, don't even have any increase driver or conductor costs. For sure, longer trains take a bit longer as they snake their way through speed restrictions - the head can't accellerate while the tail is still on a speed limit, but we're not talking huge long trains here.

In some places, lines are already at or near capacity, or so we're told. But with a standardisation of trains to the same performance envelope and stopping patter, and a lengthening of them all to the line's maximum length, you can get more people along the flow.  I'm thinking of Paddington to Reading, where you could routinely run 16 x 10 coach trains every hour. Heathrow served from Crossrail and the relief lines (they're not "slow" lines, are they?) and then in every 15 minutes:

A 10 car train via Bristol Parkway - to Swansea, or to Temple Meads

A 10 car train via Reading West - in each hour
   one train express to Plymouth and Penzance
   two trains dividing and serving Basingtoke, and different stopping patternd to Westbury / Bedwyn
   one train fast to Westbury, then stations to Newton Abbott dividing to Paignton and Plymouth

A 10 car train via Didcot
   two trains on to Oxford with 5 coaches forward alternately to Banbury and Hereford via Worcester
   two trains dividing at Didoct, 5 coaches forward to Oxford ...
   ... one portion on to Swindon, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester, Bromsgrove and Birmingham
   ... one portion on to Swindon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Yeovil, Dorchester and Weymouth

A 10 car train via Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads
   five cars forward off two of the trains to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton

Each train to make a single intermediate stop between London and Reading - each dropping back one "path" with the first train stopping furthest out. This would give a 15 minute service to Slough, Maidenhaed and Twyford ... and I expect one of our members here would suggest Taplow for the fourth stop ;-).

Progressive, planned electrification of the routes covered by these trains - being bimodes - would in a long term and controlled manner move us towards greater electric haulage and the efficencies brought, and some of the line (you'll note) have London portions of trains replacing local services; an encouragement to passeners to use those services, and by splitting and joining trains, you're no longer routinely running packed services from London to Reading which remain the same length at present and thin out as they get further west.

It's getting late ... so I'll come back (if there's any interest / follow up) on track, station and depot capacities, and on that question of how we get people to the station [[ some station car parks have issues already ... not seen that addressed in the report, but then it's a long report and I may have missed it ... ]] .  And if this whole post looks a bit mad, I can turn around in two days time and say it was just last year's ideas ...
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 589


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2016, 20:11:04 »

Very interesting article, and not one mention of the lost opportunity with GW (Great Western) electrification to increase track gauge out of Paddington to allow for Double Deck trains.

The big issue with the GW is the limited capacity at Paddington, for a major terminal station it does not have enough platforms.
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2016, 20:13:36 »

Crossrail will release at least a couple though, more if in due course the Heathrow Express withers on the vine as passengers prefer the convenience of Crossrail services.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2016, 20:22:53 »

Very interesting article, and not one mention of the lost opportunity with GW (Great Western) electrification to increase track gauge out of Paddington to allow for Double Deck trains.

The big issue with the GW is the limited capacity at Paddington, for a major terminal station it does not have enough platforms.

Every article I have read on double deck trains has come out saying they do not increase capacity that much as there is so much lost space for the door vestibules and the dwell times are increased substantially. 
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2017, 08:11:43 »

Indeed. Can you imagine the dwell times as pax extricate themselves from a seat in the middle of the top deck, for example? Almost double I reckon at busiest stations to around 5mins a stop. Reducing capacity, not increasing it
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2017, 09:47:44 »

Indeed. Can you imagine the dwell times as pax extricate themselves from a seat in the middle of the top deck, for example? Almost double I reckon at busiest stations to around 5mins a stop. Reducing capacity, not increasing it

Increased dwell time was certainly the problem with the Southern's 4DD trains - 20 seats per single width slam door exit. 
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1243



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2017, 10:44:20 »

I am surprised that no moves have been made to extend the capacity by utilising the old parcels platforms at the end of platform 1.  A station car park is a bit of a luxurious concept within a major city like London.  There's room at least for two platforms in there, if not three.

Would need a bit of adjustment to the station throat on the low numbered side and the Royal Oak sidings.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2017, 11:06:34 »

Very interested background Graham to the subject of accommodating growth.

One comment I would make it that it strikes me that whilst we have some areas where there is very little capacity for easy growth - you are not going to get many more passengers per hour into Euston or Waterloo without some hugely expensive engineering work- there are still plenty of other places on the network where a doubling of numbers could be relatively easily accommodated.  If you replaced the 4 car Voyagers with 6 car IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.) you would doubt capacity with very little need for infrastructure spend at all.  If you doubled the frequency and therefore capacity through Melksham the only major cost would be in finding an extra unit and staffing for it.

So an important strategic question is:

Do we direct our spending to areas where capacity and demand is already sky high and therefore extra capacity tends to be very expensive to purchase (essentially London), or do we direct our spending to areas where there is still slack in the system and an upping of frequency and lengthening of trains can be provided at little more cost than the provision of some extra units?

I would venture that whilst we probably need to do a bit of the former, that spending on the latter is where the focus should be because the money goes much further and because it has the side effect of rebalancing the economy away from London and the SE.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2017, 12:03:14 »

I am surprised that no moves have been made to extend the capacity by utilising the old parcels platforms at the end of platform 1.  A station car park is a bit of a luxurious concept within a major city like London.  There's room at least for two platforms in there, if not three.

Would need a bit of adjustment to the station throat on the low numbered side and the Royal Oak sidings.

Agree, at a station with huge capacity problems it amazes me that no real effort has put into restoring to use these facilities.
The disused platform 1 extension could handle very much longer trains, this facility may be viewed from any train departing platform one.
A handful of  18/19/20 coach IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.) departing platform one could significantly improve capacity.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2017, 12:19:24 »

A handful of  18/19/20 coach IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.) departing platform one could significantly improve capacity.
And which other stations on the GWR (Great Western Railway) network could handle such long trains? Are you suggesting 'For Reading and Newbury/Didcot(or Swindon) use the rear 9 coaches only' with the front 9 coaches going on to farther destinations?
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2017, 12:38:21 »

Why not? As long as they split well down the line (say BPW» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) for the SW/Wales)....selective door opening can be got used to.
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2017, 12:47:58 »

Why not? As long as they split well down the line (say BPW» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) for the SW/Wales)....selective door opening can be got used to.
Other than platform signalling and lengths of platform loops, I would agree. If you decide, say, 'rear 9 cars only for x,y,z' then will the front 9 cars stop beyond signals or would either end potentially foul points where platforms are on loops?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2017, 13:03:24 »

A handful of  18/19/20 coach IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.) departing platform one could significantly improve capacity.
And which other stations on the GWR (Great Western Railway) network could handle such long trains? Are you suggesting 'For Reading and Newbury/Didcot(or Swindon) use the rear 9 coaches only' with the front 9 coaches going on to  farther destinations?
.
IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly), Taunton could handle a train of that length, at which point the train could divide.

"the 18-03 service will depart from platform 1. Join any part of the train for Taunton where the train will divide. Join the front 9 cars for Plymouth and then all intermediate stations to Penzance, join the rear 9 cars for intermediate stations to Plymouth. The rear portion terminates at Plymouth."

on.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2017, 13:15:23 »

Yup, but I suspect EXD» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) will be the split point as there's staff facilities there.
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2017, 13:27:39 »

Yup, but I suspect EXD» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) will be the split point as there's staff facilities there.

Apart from the fact that EXD could not accommodate an 18 coach train without fouling either the Red Cow level crossing or access to Platforms 1 and 3 from the south (having overshot the signal at the end of the platform).
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page