GWRF2020-07 Reducing journey times by reducing intermediate stops

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Consultation Question 7

a) Do you agree or disagree with reducing journey times to destinations in the South West by reducing stops at intermediate stations?
– Agree
– Disagree
– No opinion
b) Which services or stations would benefit or be disadvantaged by this approach?
Why?
c) Are there any specific locations or routes elsewhere where it could be appropriate to reduce station stops in order to speed up longer-distance journeys?
Why?


Explanatory text

As set out in Chapter 1, the introduction of new intercity trains will enable improvements in journey times on key long-distance routes during the term of the current franchise. There are also aspirations for further journey time improvements on some routes. We will explore the potential for any of these to be achieved within the proposed term of the next franchise, but in many instances such improvements would require either infrastructure change (usually dealt with through Network Rail’s business planning process) or significant reform to service structures.

One prominent example is the Peninsula Rail Task Force’s (PRTF) aspiration for faster journeys between London and the south west peninsula. The current franchisee is already working closely with Network Rail to identify opportunities for incremental gains to journey times through targeted infrastructure interventions, though such opportunities would require new funding to implement. We would expect to see such collaboration continue, and ideally increase further.

We are also aware that the PRTF’s aspirations have led to concerns that longer-distance journeys might in future be accelerated by omitting calls at intermediate stations along the route. In the first instance, we are therefore starting to explore whether there is any scope for longer-term changes to planned service structures that could enable faster longer-distance journeys, while also maintaining planned service frequencies at intermediate stations. We are also inviting views on how we can best strike the right balance between the interests of longer-distance passengers and users of intermediate stations along the route.

See http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19037 for the background to this topic

[grahame]

discussion

I'm going to jump into the hornet's nest on this one!

If you have a train that runs from A to U calling at three intermediate stations (E I and O), you're catering for AE AI AO and AU, EI, EO and EU^» (European Union - about), IO, IU and OU flows - that's 10 different journeys on the train.

If you add three more intermediate stops - at C, H and M you have six intermediate stops and you're now catering for 28 different journeys on the same train.  That's AC, AE, AH, AI, AM, AO, AU, CE, CH, CI, CM, CO, CU, EH, EI, EM, EO, EU, HI, HM, HO^▸ (Model Railway, 3.5mm to 1 foot scale), HU, IM, IO, IU, MO, MU^▸ (Multiple Unit), and OU.

With 10 direct journeys catered for you can justify - say - a service every 2 hours, taking 180 minutes.  With 28 journeys, a service every hour taking 200 minutes.  Bearing in mind that people's schedules are rarely set by their transportation, I figure that if I travel from A to U for a meeting, I'm going to have to wait (on average) half a train frequency for the time I really need to be at U.  So

Trains makes 3 stops.  Departure from A is 180 + (0.5 * 120) = 240 minutes earlier
Trains makes 6 stops.  Departure from A is 200 + (0.5 * 60) = 230 minutes earlier

It gets even more interesting if I'm attending an important meeting and so (these days) travel one train before I need to.

Trains makes 3 stops.  Departure from A is 180 + (1.5 * 120) = 360 minutes earlier
Trains makes 6 stops.  Departure from A is 200 + (1.5 * 60) = 290 minutes earlier

You'll note that many of the extra journey opportunities offered by the 3 extra stops are regional rather than long distance ones.  And I'm going to suggest that regional traffic has been and will continue to be far more important than it was a generation ago.  And that frequency of service is far more import an on shorter journeys than on longer ones.

[ellendune]

There is a balance here.

Cutting stops reduces journey time - less so with electric services and their increased acceleration - but it reduces journey times for others.  However when people have to change trains there is always a delay. 

Out here in the wastes between Didcot and Chippenham/Bristol Parkway local stations were all closed in the 1960's. Less talked about is that so were local train services.  If we want to travel from say Swindon to Bristol Parkway - there are only the express services! 

Services to Oxford are appalling as they require a change (to a local service) at Didcot.

Restore the Oxford Bristol locals and perhaps you could think about reducing some stops. 

[grahame]

There is a balance here.

Totally agreed - I am not advocating "Platform 1 for the Cornish Riveira, calling at Acton Main line ......."

Cutting stops reduces journey time - less so with electric services and their increased acceleration - but it reduces journey times for others.  However when people have to change trains there is always a delay.

Exactly;  in my example, C, E, H, I, M and O are all interchanges and no suggestion to stop at B, D, etc ...

Out here in the wastes between Didcot and Chippenham/Bristol Parkway local stations were all closed in the 1960's. Less talked about is that so were local train services.  If we want to travel from say Swindon to Bristol Parkway - there are only the express services! 

Services to Oxford are appalling as they require a change (to a local service) at Didcot.

Restore the Oxford Bristol locals and perhaps you could think about reducing some stops. 

Good input - and certainly should be on the aspiration radar in a lot of inputs.  I'm unsure as to the scope for local services between Royal Wootton Bassett and Westerleigh junctions; Badminton came up in a thread the other day but from what I've seen new stations along there would probably need to go hand in hand with major infrastructure development based on overall regional planning policies.

[eightf48544]

The other factor you might like to consider is load factors. How far along the journey do you get a full train for U. However, it is very complex to calculate except for certain journeys. as you have to take into account lost journeys to and from missed stops.

To give an example in the TV it is probably justified to run a couple of fast trains from Twyford and/or Maidenhead to Paddington in the peak as they will almost certainly be full from those stations. But those trains will probably have to start at Oxford or Newbury and stop most stations to Reading to ensure they are full from their last stop. However running these trains denies people West of Reading  through trains to Slough, Hayes and Ealing Broadway. However, there is no justification for such trains off peak.

So you need to know how many people are likely to undertake each of the 28 journey possibilities for any particular train and add in the possible extra passengers you pick up with a faster journey time to U and take off those lost short jpurneys.

It can only really be solved empirically take out stops and speed up service and see how many more longer distance passengers you get or put in more stops and see how many longer journey passengers you lose in relation to short hops gained.

Then you have to factor in the cost of stopping the train.

I think the answer, however, is 42.

[Adelante_CCT]

This question has come up before on this forum and I feel that as a group we will never come to an agreement on this subject, anyhow here are my thoughts....

a) Agree
b) Benefit = Non-Intermediate stations..... Disadvantaged = Intermediate stations 
c) - Assuming double tracked throughout possibly certain services on the Cotswold Line
    - The odd 'headline' Cheltenham service, that maybe misses out Gloucester, would save a chunk of time.


As I have previously mentioned on other topics, I agree that missing out certain stations to save time on longer journeys should occur where appropriate, assuming a good service with good connections occurs for those intermediate stations. Westbury has been a hot topic in the past as it provides good links with other destinations, but is also a huge time penalty for services coming off the mainline to stop.

For those who use somewhere like Westbury would want most/all long distance services to stop, those who don't would be happy to sail past. My preference (looking from the outside, someone who seldom uses the line) would be for a regular clock-face intermediate service with minimal connection times for onward journeys, such as is likely to happen from 2019. Such a service can hoover up the stops at Pewsey, Castle Cary etc, allowing faster journeys for those heading further afield.

I don't know passenger loadings for Gloucester/Cheltenham or for various stations along the Cotswold, but having a headline service or two in the peaks may be beneficial to the stations towards the ends of those routes.

As I have said, this is certainly a question that as a group we will never agree on a conclusion.

[ellendune]

Once you have a certain frequency of services then you can have fast and semi-fast or local services. Skipping odd stops on different services means that some stations will have no effective service.  Once you have a service every 30 minutes then perhaps alternate services should be fast and semi fast.  If there is a peak frequency that is even more than 2 per hour then a one train might miss even more. 

However, heavily used stations should not be skipped just to achieve a headline timing on some longer route.  If a station is very heavily used it would need adequate alternative services (at least 2 per hour) before any skip it. 

(Puts hard hat on)

[CyclingSid]

They used to do alternate trains (semi-fast and slow in old Southern terminology) on the Waterloo - Portsmouth service. The slow would wait at Haslemere to allow the semi-fast to pass. A pattern still used under SWT^▸ (South West Trains), not sure about SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) situation, seemed to work alright if you were awake (!) and knew to wait the extra few minutes at Guilford for the following semi-fast.

[grahame]

They used to do alternate trains (semi-fast and slow in old Southern terminology) on the Waterloo - Portsmouth service. The slow would wait at Haslemere to allow the semi-fast to pass.

Read ...
* "Paddington" for Waterloo
* "Plymouth and beyond" for Portsmouth
* "Exeter St. Davids" for Haselmere

Now - that was a train every hour all day on both the slower and the faster services, right? 

[stuving]

Reading-Gatwick is currently served on alternate half-hours by semi-fast (to Gatwick) and stopping (to Redhill) services. Aside from to- and from-school (and -work) times, the skipped stations are 5/8 on each side of Guildford, but on the Reigate leg the slow trains also skip 2 or 3 on alternate hours. On Sundays they do things the other way (like some RER lines) - all stops on one leg, just three on the other.

All this juggling is to get the cycle time to match for all trains, at three hours. The SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) said there should be 2 tph to Gatwick, as it has since 2005, but successive Network Rail excusesexplanationsexcuses have prevented that. They still haven't built platform 0 at Redhill, and this year cam up with a new excuse - the level crossing at Reigate.

Of course there's nothing else on most of that line, and not too much on the bits at each end and around Guildford that are shared, but the faster services can't overtake except in Guildford station. There has been some public discussion of how the second Gatwick train will be fitted in (in the current franchise SLC from last May, and maybe we'll see it this May?) The most concrete has the stopper waiting about 20 minutes in Guildford where it is overtaken - which can be justified by the fact that most users will want to switch to something faster there (on the same or another route) and only a few will do Shalford-Ash or the like.

Most of that just won't work on a busy line. The RER example operates on some lines where there are two track pairs available, and trains run non-stop to half-way and then all stops on the other half. That too is "right" for people going to or from Paris, but means an extra change for intrasuburbanites. My recollection is that the non-stop line is usually shared with other regional or outer-suburban services that also run non-stop, while the RER line is likely to be dedicated.

[Adelante_CCT]

...There has been some public discussion of how the second Gatwick train will be fitted in (in the current franchise SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) from last May, and maybe we'll see it this May?) The most concrete has the stopper waiting about 20 minutes in Guildford where it is overtaken...

Whilst the timetable isn't complete/set in stone, looking ahead from May does give some possible hints....

From the handful of trains that have been pencilled in, services from Reading to Gatwick depart at xx:01, whilst the Redhills depart at xx:20, with a 15 minute wait at Guildford, this would be perfectly timed for an xx:31 ish departure from Reading to pass at Guildford, the same appears to happen Northbound as well. Note the Redhills have a 50 minute turnaround at Reading.

So perhaps May will see these new times as above with just the existing services, with additional services going in the gaps (eg: xx:31) from a future date thereafter

[Bob_Blakey]

Another one that is 'never going to happen', but I would like to have seen Westbury as the only stop after Reading on services to the south-west that don't already run fast to Taunton, together with an electric service dealing with any traffic to/from Newbury, Hungerford, Bedwyn & Pewsey (and possibly some others) and providing connections at Westbury.

(Yes, I have always believed that the first stage of B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) electrification should have gone as far as Westbury).

[Henry]

 Controversially, although it's my local station,  Totnes has always 'dragged down' timings on high speed service's.

  Just by it's geography, at the bottom of a hill with two of the steepest bank's in the country.