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

[najaB]

So instead of scheduling xx00, xx20 and xx40 you only schedule xx00 but if that will be beyond capacity you run xx03 and then if still demand xx06? If you only need the xx00 you save the direct running cost of the trains for the xx03 and xx06 but still have the capital cost.
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?

Thing is, you still need to run the xx03 and xx06 anyway so that the stock will be available at the other end of the route if the other direction is busy. Now, instead of being able to capture the walk-up traffic at xx20 and xx40 they're all stuck at the station waiting until the next hour's train(s).

 

[TheManOnThe172]

The ability to re-book AP relatively easily on-the-day to adjacent trains with no fees would be a massive help

For large parts of the Midlands, such a provision would be far more valuable than HS2 will be. 186mph for 50 minutes or so is nice enough - but spending perhaps 45 minutes at 0mph before you start (because of the punitive costs of missing your fixed-ticket train) means that a 125mph service with a semi-flexible ticket would offer a far better experience for many of those without the budget for an Anytime ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For large parts of the Midlands, such a provision would be far more valuable than HS2 will be. 186mph for 50 minutes or so is nice enough - but spending perhaps 45 minutes at 0mph before you start (because of the punitive costs of missing your fixed-ticket train) means that a 125mph service with a semi-flexible ticket would offer a far better experience for many of those without the budget for an Anytime ticket.

This also plays into the hands of Chiltern and LNR.

I think really there are two entirely different markets Avanti West Coast serve, that are inconveniently lumped in together. London to Birmingham is basically a walk up market with (normally) a very frequent service, which could do with not having Advances at all but rather banded walk-up singles, while the other routes are longer-distance and where people tend to plan much more and Advances work well. HS2 probably brings Manchester into the former category given the significant speed-up. The Scottish services are almost something else entirely.

GWR is similar - Bristol is borderline outersuburban, Cornwall is true long-distance InterCity (though really mutates into a RE past Plymouth), Cardiff is a bit like Manchester in being awkwardly between the two. LNER less so as there's no major centre of demand south of Leeds.

And the Greater Anglia Norwich is just a poshed-up "The Master Cobbler", i.e. Euston-Northampton, and not a long distance InterCity service at all, or no more so than the Pompey Direct.

 

[Starmill]

And where the railway is now, it is the money that talks.

I would argue that a fear of political consequences from station and line closures has well outweighed this, and so far the pandemic hasn't shifted the circumstances much. Indeed a quasi-prohibition on closing anything whatsoever is in fact part of the cause of the current financial crisis.

As I said, good luck with your argument that stations like Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel will be closing permanently in order to support your vision of long distance services as reservation only...

This has strayed from my original point, which was that, when most tickets are advance booked, 3 trains per hour do not need be every 20 minutes.

But as other people keep pointing out, there's still a large number of people travelling on other types of ticket. Your answer to this appears to be that they should no longer use the long-distance trains, which in practice means they must no longer travel at all, or they must displace people from the small number of local services.

 

[Watershed]

Yes, that's it.


I'm not certain of the answer on that, but it would depend on balancing how soon it is possible to get good forecasts of demand and the planning horizon for fixing supply of rolling stock and traincrew resources. I wouldn't want to go as far as on-call working, but there might be scope for having fewer rest days at busy times and more rest days at quiet times.


And where the railway is now, it is the money that talks.

Yield management wouldn't go away, if anything it would become more important. Yield management would still be needed to avoid running trains with 5 passengers, and it would still be needed to ensure that rolling stock and traincrew were not idle. But it has to be a step forward to be able to manage supply and demand not just demand.


I'm glad someone has mentioned football. Flexibility of supply could be a significant benefit on football matchdays. For example, if Liverpool are kicking off at 1230 and Manchester United at 1500 then early morning capacity from London can be weighted towards Liverpool and later morning capacity towards Manchester. Similar considerations could apply to other big sporting and cultural events.

There's a huge amount of data on ticketing and travelling now, and the computer power to process it. That opens up potential for the railway to manage demand and supply in ways that weren't possible 20-30 years ago, driving revenue up and costs down. Yield management has been doing that on the demand side for a while now. The supply side is more of a challenge, but every crisis is an opportunity, and the railway is in crisis now.

This has strayed from my original point, which was that, when most tickets are advance booked, 3 trains per hour do not need be every 20 minutes.

I am all in favour of reforming timetables - clearly, the current model offers a poor utilisation of the resources that are made available to the industry.

However, I fail to see how your proposals deliver an improvement to passengers. I agree that it is frustating having trains every 20 minutes if the price of a flexible ticket is so high that you realistically have to tie yourself to one train with an Advance.

But this is something which can be addressed by changing the ticketing - firstly, by allowing Advances to be quickly and easily changed almost up until the moment of departure, perhaps with a stepped fee depending on how close to departure you make the change; secondly, by reducing the ludicrously overpriced level of Anytime fares on long-distance routes. The ratio of Anytime to Off-Peak fares should never be more than 2x, and in most cases lower than that.

Having trains at frequent intervals also reduces the Generalised Journey Time, which is important in ensuring the competitiveness of trains compared to the car. It means that connections between trains, or between trains and buses/Underground/light rail are likely to be shorter. So even in a model where nearly everyone is forced onto Advances, it still has some value. For instance, on a route where there are flights once every 2 hours vs two flights within 10 minutes then a 3h50m gap, the former is much more likely to be convenient for my plans - even though I'm tied to the flight I book.

What you suggest would also be impractical on many routes, such as those with mixed calling patterns (would all trains have to be slowed down to stop at all stations?), those with mixed routes (what would serve Wilmslow if you only had Manchester trains via Macclesfield?) and those where the number of platforms simply isn't high enough to have loads of trains sitting around at the same time (this applies almost everywhere!).

Flighting is also already used on many mainlines, but typically with trains to different destinations and calling patterns following each other. For instance, on the GWML you can have trains departing Paddington at 2 minute intervals heading to Taunton, Plymouth and Hereford. What would the Plymouth and Hereford services do if you had to allow 'shadow paths' for possible relief services to Taunton/Bristol? Would you rewrite the entire timetable on the lines those services head to, just to allow this new structure?

Like I say, I am all for change, but I just don't think that this would be the answer.

 

[edwin_m]

Not to the same extent, as they would alight the train and leave the platform immediately. When people are milling around waiting for 2 or 3 trains at 13/14 quite a crowd can congregate. The rail companies need to look for opportunities rather than look for objections.

A London arrival at P13/14 would be double the length of everything else and result in large numbers of people trying to get up both sets of stairs. You also haven't mentioned departures, which would be far worse with people trying to squeeze through the narrow bit between 13 and 13b - in both directions - to find their coach. The EMR service causes significant problems every hour with slow boarding and a Pendolino would be far worse.

I'd like to think that HS2 will provide enough capacity on the principal WCML journeys that walk-up fares can be reduced well below the current levels - which are partly set to price people off the busiest trains. And that HS2 taking passengers off the classic route will allow similar reductions on journeys that HS2 doesn't serve directly. So it wouldn't be sensible to try and go the other way now. Airlines may get away with doing so, but most UK domestic flights are at much lower frequencies than hourly, so most people would have to pick a flight in advance and stick with it even if cheap walk-up airfares were a thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A London arrival at P13/14 would be double the length of everything else and result in large numbers of people trying to get up both sets of stairs. You also haven't mentioned departures, which would be far worse with people trying to squeeze through the narrow bit between 13 and 13b - in both directions - to find their coach. The EMR service causes significant problems every hour with slow boarding and a Pendolino would be far worse.

I'd like to think that HS2 will provide enough capacity on the principal WCML journeys that walk-up fares can be reduced well below the current levels - which are partly set to price people off the busiest trains. And that HS2 taking passengers off the classic route will allow similar reductions on journeys that HS2 doesn't serve directly. So it wouldn't be sensible to try and go the other way now. Airlines may get away with doing so, but most UK domestic flights are at much lower frequencies than hourly, so most people would have to pick a flight in advance and stick with it even if cheap walk-up airfares were a thing.

It's questionable if there will be any walk-up fares on HS2. It's more likely it will be Advances-for-everything TGV style, partly because I understand the evacuation arrangements in the long tunnel are designed only for a fully seated load, not a crush load.

On the other hand, with all that capacity walking up and buying one (or doing it on your phone on the way to the station) should not be extortionate.

 

[bramling]

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.

I’d say the difficulty with this is that many longer distance services (including Liverpool-Norwich) act as local or commuter services at various points in the journey. In an ideal world these flows would be separated out, but we don’t seem to have ever managed to do that effectively.

That said, I do agree with the point that longer and less frequent is more efficient, however it does seem to be the case that frequency attracts custom.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d say the difficulty with this is that many longer distance services (including Liverpool-Norwich) act as local or commuter services at various points in the journey. In an ideal world these flows would be separated out, but we don’t seem to have ever managed to do that effectively.

Liverpool-Norwich is a long distance regional express formed out of operational convenience/passenger convenience by tagging a number of separate regional services together. Germany has three hour REs, and France has 3 hour TERs, that's all it is (but a bit longer, 5 hours if I recall). It'd be a walk-up stopping service without reservations in either country.

TPE is perhaps a bit more complex as the faster ones are more IC.

 

[bramling]

Or do you run a consistent service every day, of day three trains an hour, and manage demand with yield management?

Which operators like London Midland seemed to do remarkably poorly. Sell as many cheap advances as possible so as to fill a 4-car train to bursting point, meanwhile the faster Virgin train ran half empty. I wouldn’t say this was a desirable outcome for anyone, though to be fair this was only one way of doing things.

I’m always glad WAGN never managed to run north of Peterborough, as I suspect we’d have had something similar on the ECML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which operators like London Midland seemed to do remarkably poorly. Sell as many cheap advances as possible so as to fill a 4-car train to bursting point, meanwhile the faster Virgin train ran half empty. I wouldn’t say this was a desirable outcome for anyone, though to be fair this was only one way of doing things.

The situation on the southern part of the WCML and those services is an interesting one. The popularity of the LM/LNR services even when Avanti was running fine says to me that actually people paying themselves would rather have a cheaper, slower, flexible* service than a more expensive, faster and less flexible one. This isn't surprising, as in countries where RE/TER and IR/IC are cheaper than TGV/ICE, people crowd onto the slower services in droves, so the data already exists.

That says to me that perhaps the south WCML service to Birmingham should look a bit more like 4tph LNR** but 1tph Avanti. And that the LNR Crewe should probably go to 2tph, perhaps one to Liverpool and one to Manchester, both 12 car, and Avantis should be removed to fit that in if necessary.

It also raises interesting questions about what the post-HS2 service should look like.

* Though plenty of people buy Advances too.
** Or more Chilterns, if easier to path.

 

[bramling]

The situation on the southern part of the WCML and those services is an interesting one. The popularity of the LM/LNR services even when Avanti was running fine says to me that actually people paying themselves would rather have a cheaper, slower, flexible* service than a more expensive, faster and less flexible one. This isn't surprising, as in countries where RE/TER and IR/IC are cheaper than TGV/ICE, people crowd onto the slower services in droves, so the data already exists.

That says to me that perhaps the south WCML service to Birmingham should look a bit more like 4tph LNR** but 1tph Avanti. And that the LNR Crewe should probably go to 2tph, perhaps one to Liverpool and one to Manchester, both 12 car, and Avantis should be removed to fit that in if necessary.

It also raises interesting questions about what the post-HS2 service should look like.

* Though plenty of people buy Advances too.
** Or more Chilterns, if easier to path.

The situation on the southern part of the WCML and those services is an interesting one. The popularity of the LM/LNR services even when Avanti was running fine says to me that actually people paying themselves would rather have a cheaper, slower, flexible* service than a more expensive, faster and less flexible one. This isn't surprising, as in countries where RE/TER and IR/IC are cheaper than TGV/ICE, people crowd onto the slower services in droves, so the data already exists.

That says to me that perhaps the south WCML service to Birmingham should look a bit more like 4tph LNR** but 1tph Avanti. And that the LNR Crewe should probably go to 2tph, perhaps one to Liverpool and one to Manchester, both 12 car, and Avantis should be removed to fit that in if necessary.

It also raises interesting questions about what the post-HS2 service should look like.

* Though plenty of people buy Advances too.
** Or more Chilterns, if easier to path.

I suspect we’d have seen things done differently had there not been the issues with the west coast route modernisation, which afforded a certain amount of protection to Virgin. I suspect we’d have ended up with a situation where the intercity operator would have to have been more competitive, especially with Chiltern on the scene for the Birmingham route as well.

The London Midland setup wasn’t really really to anyone’s advantage. Cheap but packed local operator, cheaper but tedious (at times) Chiltern, expensive Virgin, and crowded trains for people who didn’t have the choice of operators, for example Northampton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The London Midland setup wasn’t really really to anyone’s advantage. Cheap but packed local operator, cheaper but tedious (at times) Chiltern, expensive Virgin, and crowded trains for people who didn’t have the choice of operators, for example Northampton.

I think the south WCML situation (pre COVID) was absolutely fine once LNR took over with a greater willingness to pay to get the 350/2s out to play, meaning pretty much everything was 8-car north of Northampton (and throughout for the Crewe) and a lot of it was 12-car south of Northampton, and with 3tph Euston-Brum.

Until, of course, the through Liverpool idiocy, but that's thankfully gone and won't be back.

 

[Dr Day]

Maybe wishful thinking, but one would hope GBR (and the transition team in the interim) would be optimising the WCML fares, demand and supply both pre-and post HS2 for the benefit of UK plc rather than each TOC trying to maximise its own revenue independently. There is clearly a case for some market segmentation (ie acknowledge there are some people who are prepared to pay less for a slower journey) but doesn't feel like the current offer has the balance quite right.

 

[bramling]

I think the south WCML situation (pre COVID) was absolutely fine once LNR took over with a greater willingness to pay to get the 350/2s out to play, meaning pretty much everything was 8-car north of Northampton (and throughout for the Crewe) and a lot of it was 12-car south of Northampton, and with 3tph Euston-Brum.

Until, of course, the through Liverpool idiocy, but that's thankfully gone and won't be back.

Yes agreed, okay once sufficiently long trains are running, albeit one then starts to wonder what’s the point of the Intercity service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes agreed, okay once sufficiently long trains are running, albeit one then starts to wonder what’s the point of the Intercity service.

People who have more money than time, as a Thalys style "expensive but good*" hourly premium service, perhaps?

* Yes, I know it's questionable if Thalys is *that* good, but you see what I mean.

 

[Bevan Price]

Indeed. Say the 13:00 Euston to Manchester has all tickets sold, so you now want to run the 13:03. There's only 5 tickets sold.
The 10:00 Manchester to Euston ran but wasn't full, so the 10:03 Manchester to Euston didn't run.
Do you run the 10:03 ECS from Manchester to Euston to make the 13:03 Euston to Manchester for the sake of 5 passengers or do you give them their money back and tell them to walk because they arent worth the cost?

Or,
Would you run a "relief" with low passenger numbers, but throw them all off (with a refund of course) and terminate short if there was suddenly a demand at an intermediate station in the other direction (perhaps a late finishing football match) in the style of 'pirate' buses in London in the 1920s?

Relief train running was often based on previous experience of loadings on particular dates / times of year.
For example, back in the 1960s, at Bank Holiday weekends (only), there would be a Sunday relief at about 17:25, in advance of the 17:35 Liverpool Lime St. - London Euston. Both trains were usually well-loaded.
And only a minority of passengers had pre-booked reservations.

 

[Gathursty]

People in Bolton are as likely to go via Wigan to London as they are via Manchester. In fact, no I'd change at Wigan every time.

 

[bramling]

People who have more money than time, as a Thalys style "expensive but good*" hourly premium service, perhaps?

* Yes, I know it's questionable if Thalys is *that* good, but you see what I mean.

Which is okay to a point, but it isn’t awfully productive to have people essentially throwing away time in that way, especially as the likes of a 350/2 isn’t really set up for stuff like working.

Naturally not everyone is me, however I’ve used Chiltern a couple of times on the Birmingham journey, and I found it torture - albeit this was before the “mainline” push so things no doubt got a bit better until Covid happened. But for me it would be VWC/AWC all the way, worth a bit extra not to sit in a rolling endurance test. On a Saturday this would be all the more salient.

 

[Magdalia]

Thing is, you still need to run the xx03 and xx06 anyway so that the stock will be available at the other end of the route if the other direction is busy.

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.

As I said, good luck with your argument that stations like Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel will be closing permanently

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.

in order to support your vision of long distance services as reservation only...

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.

But as other people keep pointing out, there's still a large number of people travelling on other types of ticket. Your answer to this appears to be that they should no longer use the long-distance trains, which in practice means they must no longer travel at all, or they must displace people from the small number of local services.

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.

Relief train running was often based on previous experience of loadings on particular dates / times of year.
For example, back in the 1960s, at Bank Holiday weekends (only), there would be a Sunday relief at about 17:25, in advance of the 17:35 Liverpool Lime St. - London Euston. Both trains were usually well-loaded.
And only a minority of passengers had pre-booked reservations.

In those days the calendar was the only tool for predicting fluctuations in demand, now big data and computer processing power means that this sort of thing can be done in a far more sophisticated way.

I’d say the difficulty with this is that many longer distance services (including Liverpool-Norwich) act as local or commuter services at various points in the journey. In an ideal world these flows would be separated out, but we don’t seem to have ever managed to do that effectively.

That said, I do agree with the point that longer and less frequent is more efficient, however it does seem to be the case that frequency attracts custom.

Ironically, it was this point that I most wanted to address, not every 20 minutes services on routes where turn up and go is a minority in the market.

Liverpool-Norwich is a long distance regional express formed out of operational convenience/passenger convenience by tagging a number of separate regional services together.

Liverpool-Norwich isn't either of those. It is operationally inconvenient, and not particularly convenient for passengers either. East Anglia traditionally had much stronger links with Leicester and Birmingham than Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. Liverpool-Norwich is a historical accident of the sprinter/privatisation era.

Germany has three hour REs, and France has 3 hour TERs, that's all it is (but a bit longer, 5 hours if I recall). It'd be a walk-up stopping service without reservations in either country.

I don't know much about railways in Germany or France, but it sounds like a model worth looking at for long distance cross country routes like East Anglia-Midlands/North. Is there a simple real world example? I'm all for learning from others.

 

[Falcon1200]

Coming from the Fens, the best example of this absurdity is the Liverpool-Norwich service, which runs hourly with 2 car trains, hogging capacity at some key pinch points, even though most of the long distance passengers have booked in advance.

4-cars between Nottingham and Liverpool, and providing a huge number of journey opportunities between intermediate points.

I didn't say that everything should be hourly, only that, when most tickets are booked in advance

Where does this belief that 'most tickets are booked in advance' originate from?

Lumo don't make their money from Morpeth-Newcastle passengers and LNER don't make their money from Darlington-Newcastle passengers.

Unless all the passengers travelling between Morpeth and Newcastle or Darlington and Newcastle are evading paying, Lumo and LNER are indeed making money from them!

For example, if Liverpool are kicking off at 1230 and Manchester United at 1500 then early morning capacity from London can be weighted towards Liverpool and later morning capacity towards Manchester. Similar considerations could apply to other big sporting and cultural events.

So a different timetable for every Saturday, and possibly every Sunday too, during the football season? Not to mention more separate timetables for rock concerts, race meetings, rugby matches, etc. Plus yet further short notice new timetables depending how the FA Cup draw works out, for example?

This has strayed from my original point, which was that, when most tickets are advance booked, 3 trains per hour do not need be every 20 minutes.

And I fundamentally disagree with that, offering high-frequency services is a major driver of increased passenger demand. 3 trains 6 minutes apart is effectively back to an hourly service and is totally unsuitable for major flows such as Manchester or Birmingham to London.

 

[The Planner]

Are these relief trains timetabled, eating up capacity elsewhere if they don't run?

I will ask that one again. Or are you expecting a massive flexing/retiming operation to take place when it is decided the relief trains are needed?

 

[najaB]

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.

And in many other instances the balancing working *will* be needed. And 'resources' isn't just rolling stock - you need to have drivers who sign these other routes, and there need to be paths in the timetable for the trains to run in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool-Norwich isn't either of those. It is operationally inconvenient, and not particularly convenient for passengers either.

The fact that it's always packed suggests it's convenient for passengers.

But my key point was that it isn't a copy of TPE but further south. TPE is intended to be a mid-long distance railway, this isn't in the same way.

East Anglia traditionally had much stronger links with Leicester and Birmingham than Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. Liverpool-Norwich is a historical accident of the sprinter/privatisation era.

Its creation wasn't accidental.

I don't know much about railways in Germany or France, but it sounds like a model worth looking at for long distance cross country routes like East Anglia-Midlands/North. Is there a simple real world example? I'm all for learning from others.

Liverpool-Norwich is a UK example. RE1 Hamburg-Schwerin-Rostock is 2.5 hours and is likely to see a near-full turnover of passengers at Schwerin and thus would probably be two separate regional services otherwise, though I don't really have time to search the whole of Germany for the longest ones.

 

[Falcon1200]

Liverpool-Norwich isn't either of those. It is operationally inconvenient, and not particularly convenient for passengers either.

In what way is providing through services between multiple towns and cities inconvenient for passengers? It is surely exactly the opposite! And if it is operationally inconvenient, how would you change it? Abandon parts of the route altogether, or split it into separate shorter sections? In which case rather than one train passing through say Peterborough, Nottingham, Sheffield or Manchester, there are two trains arriving (one from each direction) and occupying platforms until it is time for them to depart again - Very inconvenient for everyone, and one of the reasons for providing such through services in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In what way is providing through services between multiple towns and cities inconvenient for passengers? It is surely exactly the opposite! And if it is operationally inconvenient, how would you change it? Abandon parts of the route altogether, or split it into separate shorter sections? In which case rather than one train passing through say Peterborough, Nottingham, Sheffield or Manchester, there are two trains arriving (one from each direction) and occupying platforms until it is time for them to depart again - Very inconvenient for everyone, and one of the reasons for providing such through services in the first place.

Generally proposals have been to split it at Nottingham, recognising that the two halves (well, it's more like 2/3 and 1/3) are quite different in character.

 

[Falcon1200]

Generally proposals have been to split it at Nottingham, recognising that the two halves (well, it's more like 2/3 and 1/3) are quite different in character.

It is not a route I travel often, but the last time I used it (from Nottingham to Grantham) there did seem to be quite a few people travelling through Nottingham, although I agree the service is busier further north (west?), hence the strengthening at Nottingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People in Bolton are as likely to go via Wigan to London as they are via Manchester. In fact, no I'd change at Wigan every time.

At the moment I'd understand that, but with 3tph rather than 1 (fast), typically lower crowding and the ability to board at origin giving a choice of seats, why on earth would you do that? Plus the excellent retail at Piccadilly as against the one rubbishy little buffet at Wigan NW?

I very often go from Preston/Lancaster/Oxenholme via Manchester so I can board first and grab the coveted coach A seat 45. From Bolton I'd not even contemplate going via Wigan. It's also often cheaper, if on Advances, via Manchester.

 

[Magdalia]

Where does this belief that 'most tickets are booked in advance' originate from?

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

Unless all the passengers travelling between Morpeth and Newcastle or Darlington and Newcastle are evading paying, Lumo and LNER are indeed making money from them!

But it is a drop in the bucket compared to London-Newcastle and London-Edinburgh.

So a different timetable for every Saturday, and possibly every Sunday too, during the football season? Not to mention more separate timetables for rock concerts, race meetings, rugby matches, etc. Plus yet further short notice new timetables depending how the FA Cup draw works out, for example?

I will ask that one again. Or are you expecting a massive flexing/retiming operation to take place when it is decided the relief trains are needed?

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.

n what way is providing through services between multiple towns and cities inconvenient for passengers?

And I fundamentally disagree with that, offering high-frequency services is a major driver of increased passenger demand. 3 trains 6 minutes apart is effectively back to an hourly service and is totally unsuitable for major flows such as Manchester or Birmingham to London.

The fact that it's always packed suggests it's convenient for passengers.

Both of you are confusing correlation with cause and effect. The demand goes where the supply is. Like water, it finds its own level.

In the London-Birmingham/Manchester examples increased capacity, whether at increased frequency or not, was a response to higher demand. Supply mostly creates new demand when it offers something that couldn't be done before, Cambridge-Brighton being a good recent example.

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. There was a well established link between Norwich and Leicester and Birmingham that had existed since before Nationalisation, which was completely removed by privatisation. There is a choice on which cities/towns have direct services and which do not. What we have now isn't necessarily the right choice, especially as that choice was made 30 years ago.

 

[The Planner]

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.

Q paths still exist. Majority of it is freight and that itself can cause problems. However, to "reserve" capacity out of somewhere like Euston for an xx.03 and xx.06 path that will likely not even run is an incredibly poor use of capacity when you factor in platform utilisation and the ECS paths required for it.