Does advance booking and the internet age require a different timetable structure?

[najaB]

The railway did it in the age of steam and can do it again with big data.

In the 'age of steam' there were fewer trains and more track. Big data doesn't change that.

 

[stuu]

I just don't understand the thinking here.. Even if you are booking in advance, more choice of departures during an hour/day is far more convenient, especially if you have a connection as well at either end. A train every 20 minutes gives far more flexibility and tailoring to individual needs than one every hour. Adding potentially 40 minutes of wasted time to people's journeys, and possibly more if it misses a connection is going to make people look for alternative means of transport.

There is a perhaps a case for a middle choice between an any train ticket, and a fixed train advance to take advantage of the high frequency, I.e. a ticket valid on any train in a given hour or something.

 

[Falcon1200]

Walk down a train and seeing how many seats are reserved and how many not.

From personal observation there are many travellers without reserved seats. And to take the issue of advance bookings, it is now perfectly possible to book tickets and seats within minutes of a train's departure, and in some cases, such as Cross Country, even when a train is already en route. So what would the cut off point be for the railway to decide how many folk were travelling on any given train at any given time, and to get the staff and set organised for a Q train, if found necessary?

And you are quite happy to make it inconvenient to travel between Norwich and Leicester or Birmingham, which is probably what many customers would prefer.

In this particular case, rather than a Norwich/Leicester and Birmingham direct service, there is instead a Stansted Airport and Cambridge/Leicester and Birmingham service; Do the people of Norwich have a more desperate need and therefore greater priority than the people of Cambridge for a train to Birmingham?

In the London-Birmingham/Manchester examples increased capacity, whether at increased frequency or not, was a response to higher demand.

I would argue that conversely, providing an increased frequency of service directly stimulates demand. Telling passengers that instead of a train to London at xx00, xx20 and xx40, there is now just one at xx00 is not going to do that.

A fundamental question; How would this Q train model work. Say there is a 1000 Manchester-London train with 500 seats, what happens when all 500 seats have been sold; Do advance bookings close? Or does someone now trying to book the xx00 get told, sorry, fully booked, but we will run a 1003 train - Does that train run if just 1 or 10, or even 100 try to book for the 1000?

 

[Starmill]

In many instances the balancing working won't be needed either and a whole round trip could be saved. With good yield management it might then be possible to employ those resources more lucratively elsewhere.


I have never suggested that intermediate stations should be closed. Flighting the fast services would release more track capacity between the flights and this can be used to improve services at intermediate stations.


And I haven't suggested that long distance services should be reservation only either. But in the last 20 years the balance between turn up ang go and reservation in advance has shifted, and the way the railway operates should adapt to that.


And I haven't said that either. Turn up and go fares would still be available. But turn up and go is now a smaller proportion of the long distance market than it used to be, and no longer should be the driving factor in timetable design for long distance services.

I know that you didn't intend for these to be consequences of your ideas, but the reality is that they will be inevitable unintended consequences from taking such a radically different approach, as has been explained several times in different ways now.

Nearly all long-distance trains in this country serve short-distance passengers. Therefore, as they are stakeholders, their needs must be considered alongside those of the long distance segment. This is an incontrovertible fact based on the current timetable structure. Unfortunately that's just how it is.

HS2 could feasibly operate very differently, more along the lines you're suggesting. But that would still come with big disbenefits for connections and generalised journey times if frequency were lower.

 

[Falcon1200]

In many instances the balancing working won't be needed either and a whole round trip could be saved.

In the case of Manchester/Euston, that would only work if it is known before the outward Q train is planned to run how many passengers there will be for the return Q train, ie several hours earlier. Therefore unworkable.

 

[Snow1964]

How far ahead do you decide if the xx03 and xx06 will run so need the crew? How would you usefully use the crew if the xx03 and xx06 are not required? Or would you just have then on-call?

It is a different way of thinking, put trains on sale 12 weeks ahead, if threshold of busyness is reached say 2-3 weeks ahead, activate the relief and train crew, don’t leave it until last minute.

But it gives options from ticket data which can be crunched quickly in computer era, main train might call at 6 stations, but relief can skip some as demand to/from them is low. Might not even need to run full route (handy if it is quicker to get stock to an intermediate station).

But if you use the data properly should be able to see common connections, so although historically might have run trains from A to B, might show every third train should really continue to C instead.

 

[Starmill]

It is a different way of thinking, put trains on sale 12 weeks ahead, if threshold of busyness is reached say 2-3 weeks ahead, activate the relief and train crew, don’t leave it until last minute.

But it gives options from ticket data which can be crunched quickly in computer era, main train might call at 6 stations, but relief can skip some as demand to/from them is low. Might not even need to run full route (handy if it is quicker to get stock to an intermediate station).

But if you use the data properly should be able to see common connections, so although historically might have run trains from A to B, might show every third train should really continue to C instead.

The complexity involved in trying to do this though for our current rail network would be enormous, even without the need to provide frequent and regular service to local passengers, which there very much is.

Airlines can only manage it because nearly everyone on each aircraft is making the same journey, or if they're not they're making the same vehicle leg. It's not impossible, but it is unusual for an aircraft to arrive at an airport, have some passengers disembark and others board while most remain seated onboard, and then continue its journey. Most that do are 'flying bus' services, such as the Orkney Islands Inter-Island service, to which the usual security screening regulations don't apply. But this kind of operation is a central tenet of rail travel.

 

[zwk500]

It would be a mix. To begin with, most would probably need to be timetabled and advertised, to maintain public confidence about capacity. But to get the full gains of flexibility, at least some capacity would need to be unadvertised, with what used to be called Q paths in the working timetable.

The railway did it in the age of steam and can do it again with big data.

I've planned relief paths in from Euston to Manchester and Liverpool for FA Cup finals and the like, and I can tell you it's a massively inefficient use of capacity, drivers hours and train planner time. Unadvertised reliefs in for 90 minutes, with Q paths in for extra time/penalties. Have to clear out Euston platforms for twice as long as necessary, sort out balancing moves, etc. It's also no more or less flexible than any other schedule. The departure time is the time the train it goes, regardless of how many minutes of injury time are played.

Getting a timetable that has compliant margins for multiple iterations of a plan is about the worst thing you can do from an operational smoothness point of view. It was justifiable for a big Wembley game, but as a regular passenger I'd be miffed if my train changed time every week depending on exactly what combination of reliefs needed to run.

 

[Falcon1200]

It is a different way of thinking, put trains on sale 12 weeks ahead, if threshold of busyness is reached say 2-3 weeks ahead, activate the relief and train crew, don’t leave it until last minute.

What if the threshold of busyness is not reached within that timescale - Just turn people away?

main train might call at 6 stations, but relief can skip some as demand to/from them is low

Not much point having the relief skipping stations when it is running 3 minutes behind the timetabled train.

 

[Magdalia]

In the 'age of steam' there were fewer trains and more track.

Fewer passenger trains yes, but a lot more freight.

In this particular case, rather than a Norwich/Leicester and Birmingham direct service, there is instead a Stansted Airport and Cambridge/Leicester and Birmingham service; Do the people of Norwich have a more desperate need and therefore greater priority than the people of Cambridge for a train to Birmingham?

But it could be Norwich-Birmingham and Stansted-Liverpool instead. Do Norwich people have a more desperate need and therefore greater priority than the people of Cambridge for a train to Liverpool? Norwich-Liverpool and Cambridge-Birmingham were a choice made 30 years ago to facilitate splitting the network into franchises, that's all.

In the case of Manchester/Euston, that would only work if it is known before the outward Q train is planned to run how many passengers there will be for the return Q train, ie several hours earlier. Therefore unworkable.

With big data it will be possible to forecast reasonably accurately what demand will be some days in advance. Supermarkets do it all the time. did your local supermarket run out of beer and pizza before yesterday's match? And the railway has the advantage over the supermarket that it can vary its prices more easily to manage demand.

I know that you didn't intend for these to be consequences of your ideas, but the reality is that they will be inevitable unintended consequences from taking such a radically different approach

That is always a risk with a radically different approach, and it is a risk that would need to be managed. Thameslink 2018 is a good example of that. It would have to be tried on one route first to learn lessons before rolling out more widely. But where the railway is now radical thinking is needed.

 

[najaB]

Fewer passenger trains yes, but a lot more freight.

Which could quite easily be shoved out of the way in a siding or yard somewhere to make room.

 

[Starmill]

But it could be Norwich-Birmingham and Stansted-Liverpool instead. Do Norwich people have a more desperate need and therefore greater priority than the people of Cambridge for a train to Liverpool? Norwich-Liverpool and Cambridge-Birmingham were a choice made 30 years ago to facilitate splitting the network into franchises, that's all.

Something which I have suggested would make more sense in the past is very similar to this, Norwich - Birmingham New Street and Stansted Airport - Nottingham. The only genuine downside is the loss of Cambridge - Birmingham direct services.

 

[6Gman]

Bizarrely, for long distance journeys it would look a bit like the days of steam. Any route where the tickets sold are primarily booked in advance should be running the longest trains possible, with lower frequencies.

Even on the busiest long distance routes, there's no need for anything more frequently than hourly if nearly everyone is boking in advance. If demand exceeds the capacity of one full length train, then run two or three in a flight. In the olden days they were called reliefs.

But a lot of long distance services are already at full length. And a half-hourly service (or every 20 minutes) is a good way of generating (valuable) walk-up/flexible fares.

 

[Bald Rick]

This thread is absolutely astonishing. I thought I’d seen it all on these forums. Every day is a school day!

 

[Falcon1200]

This thread is absolutely astonishing. I thought I’d seen it all on these forums. Every day is a school day!

I have to agree @Bald Rick, I have had to try very hard not to make rude or disparaging comments about the entire concept in Post #1 of this thread!

 

[zwk500]

With big data it will be possible to forecast reasonably accurately what demand will be some days in advance.

However, the paths will need to be in the timetable from very far out (6 months presently), and Drivers are normally given their rosters more than a week in advance. If you decide not to run the trains, you will also need to give the train planning and diagramming teams time to cancel out the paths and amend the ECS moves to ensure stock is balanced for the next workings. And get them into all of the systems.

And the railway has the advantage over the supermarket that it can vary its prices more easily to manage demand.

First you say the railway should run paths to match demand, now you say the railway should manage demand according to available capacity! If its fine to manage capacity for relief trains, why is it totally unacceptable to manage capacity for clock face trains?

 

[Magdalia]

First you say the railway should run paths to match demand, now you say the railway should manage demand according to available capacity! If its fine to manage capacity for relief trains, why is it totally unacceptable to manage capacity for clock face trains?

What I've said is that there are opportunities to manage supply and demand together by building in some flexibility to direct supply to where demand is highest. The relief train, if it runs, is the extra capacity for the clock face train. But, as others have said, it is important to manage demand too, so that relief trains aren't running with a handful of passengers. Sometimes it will be better to have higher fares and one train, sometimes it will be better to have two trains, and that might need lower fares to fill both. But best will be the times when two trains can be filled with high fares.

However, the paths will need to be in the timetable from very far out (6 months presently), and Drivers are normally given their rosters more than a week in advance. If you decide not to run the trains, you will also need to give the train planning and diagramming teams time to cancel out the paths and amend the ECS moves to ensure stock is balanced for the next workings. And get them into all of the systems.

I'm aware of these. Q paths can be in the timetable 6 months out. The railway already has processes for dealing with short term train planning. A good forecasting model with all that data should be able to forecast demand two weeks before, to give the time needed to the train planning and diagramming teams.

 

[Dr Day]

Although I struggle a bit with their proposed solution of relief trains, I do actually have some sympathy with what the OP I believe is trying to say - that in principle the railway should be more demand-led and less supply led. Unfortunately the responses show that the way capacity planning, pricing, timetabling and rosters etc work in the industry at the moment make this virtually impossible. The supply side is largely fixed - M-F, Sat and Sun timetables with very little seasonal variation, and some peak extras, with yield maximised through variable AP pricing on longer distance flows around slightly more flexible peak/off peak and seasons on shorter distance ones. Rail demand (other than perhaps by enthusiasts) is derived demand - people travel in order to do something else - go to work, visit friends, go the football etc - and that demand will vary significantly on any given day but is potentially forecastable to some extent. Maybe the question could be phrased slightly differently on the lines of 'should the railway do better deploying its limited resources by running trains when and where people want them, rather than relying quite as much on pricing to encourage people to travel when the railway wants to run trains?'.

Appreciate this is a very complex issue.

 

[The Planner]

I'm aware of these. Q paths can be in the timetable 6 months out. The railway already has processes for dealing with short term train planning. A good forecasting model with all that data should be able to forecast demand two weeks before, to give the time needed to the train planning and diagramming teams.

That isn't how the process works though, unless you are suggesting we offer the STP timetable 2 weeks out (freight still bid at 18 weeks). That was barely acceptable during COVID, let alone as a day to day thing. Those Q paths also eat up capacity at the terminal stations and major junctions, which with your solution here cannot be released for another operator to make use of at those timescales.

 

[Magdalia]

I do actually have some sympathy with what the OP I believe is trying to say - that in principle the railway should be more demand-led and less supply led. Unfortunately the responses show that the way capacity planning, pricing, timetabling and rosters etc work in the industry at the moment make this virtually impossible. The supply side is largely fixed - M-F, Sat and Sun timetables with very little seasonal variation, and some peak extras, with yield maximised through variable AP pricing on longer distance flows around slightly more flexible peak/off peak and seasons on shorter distance ones. Rail demand (other than perhaps by enthusiasts) is derived demand - people travel in order to do something else - go to work, visit friends, go the football etc - and that demand will vary significantly on any given day but is potentially forecastable to some extent.

Thanks, you have expressed it more eloquently than I did.

(My excuse is that what appears here as #1 was written as a response to another discussion, and not intended to be an opening statement for a new discussion.)

10 years ago it would not have been possible to do that forecasting, but it is possible now.

'should the railway do better deploying its limited resources by running trains when and where people want them, rather than relying quite as much on pricing to encourage people to travel when the railway wants to run trains?'

And the responses do leave me with the strong impression that the railway is only interested in people travelling when it wants to run trains. That worked for 30 years in a virtuous cycle of increased capacity and increased demand, the new capacity mostly lots of shiny new trains and shiny new infrastructure. But we aren't in that world any more, for the foreseeable future the railway is going to need to be relentlessly concentrating on better deploying its limited existing resources.

 

[Watershed]

And the responses do leave me with the strong impression that the railway is only interested in people travelling when it wants to run trains. That worked for 30 years in a virtuous cycle of increased capacity and increased demand, the new capacity mostly lots of shiny new trains and shiny new infrastructure. But we aren't in that world any more, for the foreseeable future the railway is going to need to be relentlessly concentrating on better deploying its limited existing resources.

I'm still just struggling to see why you would want to reduce headline frequencies in an attempt to 'improve' the railway. As I and several others have said, having a spread of departures makes it more likely there'll be a train that fits someone's plans. Surely this proposal is therefore the exact opposite of what the railway needs to attract increased custom?!

 

[Dr Day]

I'm still just struggling to see why you would want to reduce headline frequencies in an attempt to 'improve' the railway.

My reading is that the OP is seeking to 'improve' the railway by reducing costs, by potentially having some effectively 'planned cancellations' at quieter times of the day/week/year. Clearly, any reduction in costs would need to offset any loss in revenue arising from the reduced opportunities to travel at those times/on those days.

Or the other way around, maybe a more of what GWR have traditionally done during Cheltenham Race week whereby they cancel some Paddington-Cardiff services (well in advance) to provide extra capacity on the Cheltenham route, rather than purely rely on raising fares to dissuade people from travelling by train to Cheltenham (which isn't easy due to regulation, and the elasticity of the market whereby train is a popular option for folk wanting to have a few drinks).

 

[HSTEd]

On the modern railway, the vast majority of costs are associated with capability, not with actual operations.

If you have the capability to run that many trains you have to have the trains, the track capacity to run them, and the crew to crew them. You can't change any of these things at short notice in any reasonable sense.
You can't have a bunch of unpaid crew outside of stations waiting around in case they are needed when the dispatcher comes out of the door and picks the ones they want.

Once you have paid all these costs, what costs are there in running the train rather than not?
Marginal maintenance and energy?

Neither of those is particularly important.

All the railway experience of the last 60 years has shown us that frequency is king, turn up and go is king. The ideal is an overgrown Metro system.
The population doesn't plan its life around the railway - if the railway cannot provide a journey when they want to go, they will either not go at all, or drive. They won't sit around waiting for the railway to bother transporting them.

The ideal, in my opinion, would be the entire railway operating clockface hourly throughout the week, although I realise that such an extreme position would require compromises on maintenance scheduling.

The railway is inherently not adaptable, it just has to do what it does best - consistent high capacity traffic, and use yield management to squeeze what money it can out of it.

 

[Magdalia]

My reading is that the OP is seeking to 'improve' the railway by reducing costs, by potentially having some effectively 'planned cancellations' at quieter times of the day/week/year. Clearly, any reduction in costs would need to offset any loss in revenue arising from the reduced opportunities to travel at those times/on those days.

Actually, I'm more interested in driving up revenue by using resources more flexibly.

more of what GWR have traditionally done during Cheltenham Race week whereby they cancel some Paddington-Cardiff services (well in advance) to provide extra capacity on the Cheltenham route, rather than purely rely on raising fares to dissuade people from travelling by train to Cheltenham

And here's an example of what can be done.

All the railway experience of the last 60 years has shown us that frequency is king, turn up and go is king.

For most of the last 60 years the internet and the smartphone did not exist. The world has changed. Unless the service is every 5 minutes, most people no longer turn up and go, they check on the internet before they set out.

 

[HSTEd]

For most of the last 60 years the internet and the smartphone did not exist. The world has changed. Unless the service is every 5 minutes, most people no longer turn up and go, they check on the internet before they set out.

That is not my experience at all, but perhaps I am simply not down with the kids.

And what if they check on the internet and there is no train for an hour?
They won't sit around for an hour, they will either abandon the journey or drive.

 

[najaB]

Actually, I'm more interested in driving up revenue by using resources more flexibly.

The only way you can increase revenue would be by having people make journeys that they would otherwise not have made. Your idea does not do this - if anything it causes people to use their cars/alternative transport because there are fewer trips in the timetable, making the railway less convenient.

 

[Falcon1200]

What I've said is that there are opportunities to manage supply and demand together by building in some flexibility to direct supply to where demand is highest. The relief train, if it runs, is the extra capacity for the clock face train. But, as others have said, it is important to manage demand too, so that relief trains aren't running with a handful of passengers.

What that means then is, to take the example again, of Euston/Manchester; Instead of there being in theory three trains guaranteed to run, at xx00, xx20 and xx40 minutes past each hour, there would be just one at xx00. There might be a relief at xx03, or maybe not if insufficient people have booked for it; There might be another relief at xx06, but again, there might not. How on earth is such a haphazard offering expected to attract passengers?

Sometimes it will be better to have higher fares and one train, sometimes it will be better to have two trains, and that might need lower fares to fill both. But best will be the times when two trains can be filled with high fares.

So would this work? If it looks like too many people are booking for the xx00 train, but not enough to justify the xx03 first relief, would fares would be increased to dissuade any more from travelling (no matter how important their journeys are to them)? And as I asked before, but did not see an answer, what is the cut off point for closing bookings/increasing fares, bearing in mind that booking in advance does not just mean weeks or days ahead, but hours, minutes, and even when a train is already en route, with as you pointed out the facilities of the internet and smartphones.

And the responses do leave me with the strong impression that the railway is only interested in people travelling when it wants to run trains.

On the contrary, reducing the timetable so that instead of a choice of 3 trains spread over an hour, passengers have only an hourly service is the very definition of the railway only running trains when it wants people to travel!

 

[Magdalia]

The only way you can increase revenue would be by having people make journeys that they would otherwise not have made. Your idea does not do this - if anything it causes people to use their cars/alternative transport because there are fewer trips in the timetable, making the railway less convenient.

Yes it does. The people who are in their cars/alternative transport now get seats on a train instead. And there are more winners than losers.

What that means then is, to take the example again, of Euston/Manchester; Instead of there being in theory three trains guaranteed to run, at xx00, xx20 and xx40 minutes past each hour, there would be just one at xx00. There might be a relief at xx03, or maybe not if insufficient people have booked for it; There might be another relief at xx06, but again, there might not. How on earth is such a haphazard offering expected to attract passengers?

The passenger does not need to know how many trains. All they need to know is whether there are seats available and how much they cost.

If it looks like too many people are booking for the xx00 train, but not enough to justify the xx03 first relief, would fares would be increased to dissuade any more from travelling (no matter how important their journeys are to them)?

That already happens now. With supply management it would happen to fewer people.

And as I asked before, but did not see an answer, what is the cut off point for closing bookings/increasing fares, bearing in mind that booking in advance does not just mean weeks or days ahead, but hours, minutes, and even when a train is already en route, with as you pointed out the facilities of the internet and smartphones.

In yield management adjustment of fares is a continuous process.

Late bookings are forecast using big data.

The number of trains has to be decided in time for the rolling stock and train crew deployment, about 2 weeks before. After that yield management takes over completely just like it does now.

On the contrary, reducing the timetable so that instead of a choice of 3 trains spread over an hour, passengers have only an hourly service is the very definition of the railway only running trains when it wants people to travel!

Don't delude yourself that people are travelling when they want to now. Unless they get in quick most are making suboptimal decisions based on what is still available. With supply management more people will be able to make their journeys closer to their optimal time.

 

[6Gman]

That is not my experience at all, but perhaps I am simply not down with the kids.

Indeed.

The OP explained that his idea was based on his experience of seeing the number of seat reservations on trains. I'll quote my experience of phonecalls overheard on departure from Manchester/ Liverpool along the lines of "I managed to catch the 1655 so I'll be earlier getting home" to suggest that there are still plenty of people who like to catch the first train available after they arrive at the station.

And, especially in the case of Manchester, the 20 minute service was generally and genuinely seen as "turn up and go".

 

[najaB]

Yes it does. The people who are in their cars/alternative transport now get seats on a train instead. And there are more winners than losers.

There are very, very few people who are choosing to drive because the train might be full. They drive because the train is too expensive, or because it's more convenient. Your idea might help with the former but at the cost of the latter. Changing an every 20 minute service into a an hourly one is going to put a lot more people off than will be attracted by the fact that they're guaranteed* a seat.

*If enough other people also want to travel that the relief service runs.