High Speed Two

[EXTspotter]

In my experience with the intercity network - which is by no means total, I have come to the conclusion that some routes are vastly underutilised compared to "lesser" parts of the network. In my experience on the ECML the trains to destinations other than York are usually half full at best, and the further away from London you get the emptier and emptier they become. On a 5pmish departure from KX to Newcastle (I think) on a friday evening the coach I was in was half full which was the same as the rest of the train, by the time I got to Durham there were 2 people in my carriage and probably less than 20 on the train in first and standard in total. If that had been a departure out of Paddington to anywhere on the FGW network at the same time there would be, without fail, at least 30 people standing in each of the carriages plus a load more in the vestibules and toilets. Of course as with East Coast the trains get emptier as the journey goes on, but not particularly by much. To compare like journeys, Paddington - Plymouth and KX - Newcastle both take 3 hours. Both cities have a population within 20000 of the other, Plymouth 256k vs. Newcastle 273k. Both have an hourly frequency (plus extras) and both have a mixture of trains which terminate and continue to other destinations, however the trains to Plymouth have always been in my observations much busier, yet East Coast trains have 9 carriages on its HSTs vs only 8 on FGW.

The second place which I see massive overcrowding during most of the day is the entire Crosscountry Network, especially north of Reading and Bristol and south of York/Leeds and Manchester. These areas need a large increase in capacity in order to cover the demand which was partially stimulated by increasing the train frequencies. When services are operated by a pair of Voyagers or an HST the overcrowding is bad and could prove very dangerous in an accident, however when a service is operated by a class 220 on its own, all bets are off. Maybe HS2 would be better off by running from Reading and Bristol as well as London to Birmingham, this would allow Crosscountry type services as well as link up better to Heathrow via Reading and improve the public eprception of the project as it would offer direct benefits to more people.

[Ameecher]

But HS2 would allow more paths for things like CrossCountry. The biggest pinch point is Birmingham New Street, even if there were trains to add you can't add them because at BHM there is no space. And it's all well and good saying you can make the trains longer but due to the layouts at BHM you can't make all the trains longer because you'd half the capacity of a lot of platforms (most of them can be used by two services simultaneously) so by taking out the already long trains (the 390s to London) you would allow more longer cross-country services to operate. Also, if the DfT and NR use their Noggin' then surplus 390s could be utilised on XC.

[JamieLei]

But HS2 would allow more paths for things like CrossCountry. The biggest pinch point is Birmingham New Street, even if there were trains to add you can't add them because at BHM there is no space. And it's all well and good saying you can make the trains longer but due to the layouts at BHM you can't make all the trains longer because you'd half the capacity of a lot of platforms (most of them can be used by two services simultaneously) so by taking out the already long trains (the 390s to London) you would allow more longer cross-country services to operate. Also, if the DfT and NR use their Noggin' then surplus 390s could be utilised on XC.

To be fair, you'd only take up the other half of the platform if the train was terminating or reversed in New Street. Most XC services go straight through from one side to the other so it wouldn't make a difference if you doubled the length. Actually I'd put a bet on less than 50% of services terminating or reversing, although seeing both halves of the platform used is not an uncommon sight.

Platform 4c was actually a great idea. Used by terminating trains from the Wolverhampton direction, usually the Liverpool express.

[oleinves]

crosscountry is one company that really has somehow has its network pumped to the full without much expansion

neither does its bombardier class 220/221 units helped much of its passenger capacity (during peak times)
instead i feel the HST units are better off than those two (especially in terms of comfort)

IThe second place which I see massive overcrowding during most of the day is the entire Crosscountry Network, especially north of Reading and Bristol and south of York/Leeds and Manchester.

nearly the whole pennines bit of its network is worked to the extreme
took a few XC services on a sunday some time ago in yorkshire and those 4/5pm services were packed full of people (on the cl220/221)
sometimes even i had to stand

Maybe HS2 would be better off by running from Reading and Bristol as well as London to Birmingham, this would allow Crosscountry type services as well as link up better to Heathrow via Reading and improve the public eprception of the project as it would offer direct benefits to more people.

i'd agree that XC should hv part of its network linked to heathrow, though i know there would surely be a separate station for it

[Dave]

But HS2 would allow more paths for things like CrossCountry. The biggest pinch point is Birmingham New Street, even if there were trains to add you can't add them because at BHM there is no space. And it's all well and good saying you can make the trains longer but due to the layouts at BHM you can't make all the trains longer because you'd half the capacity of a lot of platforms (most of them can be used by two services simultaneously) so by taking out the already long trains (the 390s to London) you would allow more longer cross-country services to operate. Also, if the DfT and NR use their Noggin' then surplus 390s could be utilised on XC.

To be fair, you'd only take up the other half of the platform if the train was terminating or reversed in New Street. Most XC services go straight through from one side to the other so it wouldn't make a difference if you doubled the length. Actually I'd put a bet on less than 50% of services terminating or reversing, although seeing both halves of the platform used is not an uncommon sight.

Platform 4c was actually a great idea. Used by terminating trains from the Wolverhampton direction, usually the Liverpool express.

All this is moot, though, as XC trains can in three out of four directions leave from either side.

If you're going to the south coast you can leave to the "north" and circle at Soho Sth Jn, Soho East Jn, Perry Barr West Jn, Perry Barr Sth Jn, Aston and Stechford to B'ham Int'l, or to the "south" you can go direct. (Rare)

If you're going to the south west via Bromsgrove you can leave directly to the "north" via University or to the "south" round the Camp Hill Line. (Both regularly done as time difference negligible - Camp Hill Line has quicker PSRs to the very urban XCL, and is less congested)

If you're going towards Wolverhampton and Manchester you can leave directly to the "north" or to the "south" to loop round Duddeston, Aston, Perry Barr Sth Jn and Soho Nth Jn (or via Bescot). (Occasional, mainly during engineering works between NS and Wolves on the Smethwick route)

(Camp Hill is usually used if the train would otherwise be in the wrong direction, i.e. coming from Wolverhampton to go down to the south west and vice versa... I have seen trains go via Duddeston/Aston/Perry Barr to Soho in times of congestion, though)

It's only if you're going towards Tamworth et al. that it becomes a bit of a ballache... No way of routing round from Soho and Perry Barr to Duddeston and Grand Junction to go south onto the Water Orton line. Of course it's an issue that the majority of northbound services are headed towards Derby and the north west...

If capacity elsewhere rises as primary intercity routes are phased out in the Birmingham area, then the ability to do this as a secondary intercity service becomes critical, and with the freed-up paths available, it becomes a much more attractive proposition. But despite rendering the direction of departing trains moot, this all is rendered moot itself - as you would expect an overhaul of how the XC services are run. At the minute, XC services originating in Manchester are half-hourly, with the :05 (approx) services going to the south west (Bristol TM or further) and the :25 (approx) going to the south (Reading or further, usually Bournemouth), and there are six trains per hour from Scotland/the North East/the East Midlands to BNS, going to Cardiff, the south west and the south.

So if we assume that's the same in both directions that's 16tph. By reducing the amount of express work on our network - we can upgrade the east-west links - remember, without XC, it's not 2 hours from B'ham to Leeds, it's 2 hours 40 minutes via Man Picc at rush hour. That's not the best example, but whatever. If we're going to have long term stability going north-south, and it would appear that way, then developing the "Cross-Country" network might be the best way forward.

[Dave]

Both have an hourly frequency (plus extras) and both have a mixture of trains which terminate and continue to other destinations, however the trains to Plymouth have always been in my observations much busier, yet East Coast trains have 9 carriages on its HSTs vs only 8 on FGW.

FGW got rid of the buffet coach...

The second place which I see massive overcrowding during most of the day is the entire Crosscountry Network, especially north of Reading and Bristol and south of York/Leeds and Manchester. These areas need a large increase in capacity in order to cover the demand which was partially stimulated by increasing the train frequencies. When services are operated by a pair of Voyagers or an HST the overcrowding is bad and could prove very dangerous in an accident, however when a service is operated by a class 220 on its own, all bets are off. Maybe HS2 would be better off by running from Reading and Bristol as well as London to Birmingham, this would allow Crosscountry type services as well as link up better to Heathrow via Reading and improve the public eprception of the project as it would offer direct benefits to more people.

Agree, but if you electrify the GWML and add HS2 (which WILL go via Heathrow) then you'd use XC as a way of linking those two more effectively.

The chances of the public perception of FGW or any GW franchisee being good is low - everyone that complains is a Cotswold dweller which means they have a strong base of say in the opinion stakes. Which is sad, but that's the country for you.

[EXTspotter]

What do you mean exactly by buffet coach - I am sure all the FGW HSTs I've been on have been 2 First, 1 First + Buffet and 5 Standard. Also it is true that FGW gets bad rap, but at the same time like with Northern, this area hasn't recieved new trains since the 166 or 158 - the 180 doesn't count because it caused more problems than it helped. Also due to the lack of DMU cariages services, long regional routes that always used to be hauled by 158s are now hauled by 150s and even sometimes pacers. Penzance - Exeter or Bristol on a Pacer wouldn't be great if you were stupid enough to use it the whole way... Also the reason this comes about is that the Cardiff - Portsmouth and related services use a reformed 3 carriage 158, which still is nowhere enough capacity for most of the day. Yes I do understand that the trains will be very full at rush hours but when people are standing on services all day consistantly, and paying more for the priveledge each time, it will not make them warm to a company. I do understand about the shift of contribution to rail transport more onto fare payers than tax payers, however in the simplistic view that most people take the railways are getting more money for no or little improvement, which even though isn't a valid point, most people think it is.

[Dave]

Yeah, First's buffet is a TSMB - Trailer Standard Micro Buffet. So it's a composite trailer; they removed the full buffet car.

I'm pretty sure East Coast still have a full buffet coach - meaning the extra coach doesn't make much of a difference.

[61653]

FGW got rid of the buffet coach...

Yet another reason why WorstGroup are still on my list of companies to avoid when at all possible. Sadly, living in Huddersfield they're not easy to avoid!

[Jacko]

here its easy but on sundays coming back from havant direction requres FGW unless you like waiting for 40 minutes.

[Ameecher]

The story is an interesting interpretation of the near total failure of most services in the North of England last week. The comments are more worrying though.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... investment

[Chris]

After reading the article I still fail to see the connection between torrential rain causing flooding and landslides on the WCML and HS2.

[Geo Ghost]

Oh god. The comments in that article... how are we the same race?! Just what? Those comments are unbelievable.
Wow, faith in human race just dropped again.

[Kevo00]

Oh god. The comments in that article... how are we the same race?! Just what? Those comments are unbelievable.
Wow, faith in human race just dropped again.

I don't see anything particularly offensive there - or maybe I just read the wrong bit. Can you please clarify?

I'm sure most Tories would disagree with spending lots of money to upgrade the WCML to make it rain proof, too.

[Geo Ghost]

People saying that railways are old transportation and everyone should buy cars instead?
I cannot even process that in my head.

[JamieLei]

But indeed, that's one dominant discourse, particularly states-side. Most of my reading I'm doing at the moment is based around this progression from the walking city, to the public transport city, to the private automobile city.

[Kevo00]

People saying that railways are old transportation and everyone should buy cars instead?
I cannot even process that in my head.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

It is a valid point that a high level of public transport use is more difficult to sustain in a more diverse society where people also live further apart on bigger properties. A clear limitation of rail is that everyone needs to be going in the same direction at the same time to make it viable.

[doktorhonig]

This model of settlement is created by massive car ownership and usage, and it cannot be sustained without car ownership and usage. We will probably see a massive decline of this model in this century, simply because the calculation "cheap property + car usage" < "expensive property + walking/public transport" does not work anymore for more and more people.

We're lucky in Europe, since we still have real cities, but who wants to live in a huge American suburb when driving to work eats up a large amount of your salary?

[JamieLei]

The other thing that drives people to use rail transport is congestion. Most of the commuters into London have cars, but would rather stand on a train simply because it's much quicker and they know more accurately when they'll reach their office. Without congestion (which is indeed severe in all the great transport cities, including Tokyo, London, Paris and New York), rail transport won't compete well.

An odd effect noted in the US is that during a recession, congestion and thus rail use plummets. Likewise during an upturn, people use it in droves (well... for American standards!)