I read a claim that London - Newcastle journey longer now than 15 years ago

[Oswyntail]

... Surley we should be aiming at quicker journeys ?....

Why?

• As has been said earlier, for those who wish to work on the train, time is now used more productively.
• Running slightly slower services can enable more services to be scheduled.
• A slightly slower service can be more economical.
• What the customer generally wants is not so much speed as predictability and reliability (hence "padding")

Once other transport modes have been "beaten" in the timing stakes, speed becomes somewhat irrelevant.

 

[infobleep]

If we shouldn't be aim for quicker journys, why are train companies and politicans so keen to promote this journey is faster etc.?

E.g. the eltricification to Cardiff and Swansea. They are saying it will cut 20 minutes Why does that matter? Yes the modernisation might save money but why does the faster time matter?

With HS2, is their an argument for reopening closed stations on other mainlines going north, given that, the HS2 service will be fast.

Are there towns which could do with a faster service.

The service from Guildford to Portsmouth was, in the timetable at least, faster in the 1940s and 1950s than it is now and that is the regular fast services not a headline one. However it stopped at less stations then and they ran less trains.

I still find it slightly amusing to think it was faster back then.

 

[A-driver]

I can't see how cutting journey times will really make any difference personally.

Removing padding and recovery time etc will shave minutes off journeys. We may get 20mins off a 4+ hour journey and 5 off a 1 hour commuter run but that's not really life changing.

You still won't get a train from London-Edinburgh to compete with a plane in terms of journey times alone. I can't see how shaving 20 mins off the times would really encourage people on to the train.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Presumably, significantly reducing journey times will result in a requirement for fewer trainsets?

(Re)opening stations on other northern mainlines sounds like a good idea, but where? Is there any point reopening Polesworth to southbound traffic? there's the remains of a station north of Wolverton

 

[jon0844]

They were last used, officially, in the early 1990s. However they were never disabled and still show a flashing fifth aspect assuming there is enough clear track in front. So whilst the timetable has never been developed around them (as they were only used for testing/proof of concept purposes) it's perfectly possible some of your colleagues could have taken advantage of them, on the quiet, to get up to 140mph after the testing was complete.

I was on a GNER service catching up on a Sunday afternoon/evening that reached 140mph there. My GPS at the time even suggested 141mph at one point, but even allowing for a variance in accuracy, over some distance it was still much faster than 125!

I have no doubt that some drivers may still be nudging slightly over, if there's no physical restriction on a Mk4 and they aren't expecting to be caught. And I bet a TOC would secretly want to turn a blind eye if it allows the service to get into KGX without being declared late.

 

[A-driver]

I was on a GNER service catching up on a Sunday afternoon/evening that reached 140mph there. My GPS at the time even suggested 141mph at one point, but even allowing for a variance in accuracy, over some distance it was still much faster than 125!

I have no doubt that some drivers may still be nudging slightly over, if there's no physical restriction on a Mk4 and they aren't expecting to be caught. And I bet a TOC would secretly want to turn a blind eye if it allows the service to get into KGX without being declared late.

I can assure you no blind eye would be turned. If a driver was caught doing 140 on a 125 stretch they would face serious consequences weather it got in on time or not. If its deliberate (which it would be seen as if done over a long stretch) then they would probably be sacked for it.

I take it that was a fair while ago but I can assure you it is very very unlikely to happen now a days. No driver is stupid enough to risk their job over it and none would be that keen to make up time anyway. There is no point pushing it to that extent just to reduce the delay from a drivers point of view.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't see how cutting journey times will really make any difference personally.

I can't see how shaving 20 mins off the times would really encourage people on to the train.

It rather did for London - Manchester...

 

[A-driver]

It rather did for London - Manchester...

Did it? Or was it the 3 trains an hour at regular times making it a more turn up and go service?

Plus London-Manchester is a relatively short trip, a couple of hours. You aren't going to get a long haul London-Edinburgh run anywhere near that. It's always going to be the best part of the morning or afternoon whilst flights take under an hour.

 

[Bald Rick]

A bit of both to be fair. Also the more stringent airline security checks post the Glasgow airport incident in 2007 which in most cases puts an extra 20-30 mins on the effective journey time for air passengers.

 

[tbtc]

If we shouldn't be aim for quicker journys, why are train companies and politicans so keen to promote this journey is faster etc.?

E.g. the eltricification to Cardiff and Swansea. They are saying it will cut 20 minutes Why does that matter? Yes the modernisation might save money but why does the faster time matter?

...because a headline speed is a simple way to get into the papers - people don't get excited about minor improvements in reliability or in capacity increases or improved acceleration or different seats, but "five minutes faster" is presumably eye-catching enough to get into the media.

One fast service a day is fairly meaningless for most passengers and can actually be counter-productive (since it catches up with other services and creates a non-standard timetable by missing other stops out)

 

[Sidious]

1700 - 2hrs 44 (Scottish Pullman)

I've had a look at this one - In 1992 it was Right-Away non-stop to Darlington from King's Cross (arrive 19:12) and then Newcastle (19:44) and Edinburgh (21:12). To my knowledge this was the longest Non-Stop run during INTERCITY days.

I had never understood the need to miss out a stop at York - with the speed limit through the station at 20 MPH it didn't save much time.

By the Winter 1994 timetable (I don't have the ones in between to hand) it had a stop at York (18:48), and that added 4, 3 and 2 minutes on to the 1992 times at Darlington, Newcastle and Edinburgh respectively.

Weekdays, 15:00 from London to Glasgow was booked to Newcastle in 2hrs 39 minutes with a stop at York.

In the Summer 1992 timetable this was the other Scottish Pullman and called York (16:43) Newcastle (17:36) Edinburgh (19a01, 19d04) Motherwell (19:44) Glasgow Central (20:05).

This couldn't beat the fastest Euston - Glasgow train which at that time was the 10:25 Royal Scot which called Preston (12:43), Lancaster (13:01), Carlisle (13:54) and Central (15:12) but was extremely impressive as far as Edinburgh.

This thread brings back many happy memories!

Of course back then the line was far less full. There was no Grand Central or Hull Trains, and there was typically 3 or occasionally 4 trains per hour from King's Cross generally like this:

xx:00 Glasgow or Edinburgh (call York, Darlington, Newcastle - Occasional ones extra stops at Peterborough or Doncaster)

xx:05 Leeds (Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield)

xx:30 Newcastle (Peterborough and then one other stop to York and then Northallerton, Darlington and Durham)

There was an occasional additional service (10:35 Hull, 15:50 Bradford FS, 17:50 Cleethorpes).

 

[A-driver]

Regardless of speed limit not stopping at a station will of course save a fair amount of time, especially a big busy station like York.

Passing through York non stop at 20mph will take far less time than releasing doors, waiting for people to get off the train, suitcases and all, others to start getting on, again with luggage, find seats whilst people still que in doorways, perhaps help someone off/on with a wheelchair, walk down checking slam doors are closed or complete the dispatch for power operated doors, buzz the driver, get moving again. Its still going to take about 4-5mins more than not stopping.

 

[Sidious]

Regardless of speed limit not stopping at a station will of course save a fair amount of time, especially a big busy station like York.

Passing through York non stop at 20mph will take far less time than releasing doors, waiting for people to get off the train, suitcases and all, others to start getting on, again with luggage, find seats whilst people still que in doorways, perhaps help someone off/on with a wheelchair, walk down checking slam doors are closed or complete the dispatch for power operated doors, buzz the driver, get moving again. Its still going to take about 4-5mins more than not stopping.

I accept that, and that is why the extra 4 minutes were added between the 1992 and 1996 timetables when the York Stop was introduced, but that wasn't the point I was trying to highlight.

The point I was making was if you are going to make a train 1 stop between London and Newcastle, why miss out York and make it first stop Darlington, instead of the other way about?

The through roads at Darlington have a line speed in excess of 100 MPH, so if you wanted a one-stop train, you would save much more time stopping at a station that can only has a through speed of 20 MPH than you would if you had to reduce speed from 110 MPH+. This is evidenced in the booked arrival time at Newcastle: 2h36 Calling only at York, 2h44 Calling only at Darlington.

 

[swt_passenger]

The point I was making was if you are going to make a train 1 stop between London and Newcastle, why miss out York and make it first stop Darlington, instead of the other way about?

It's normally done in an attempt to manage capacity on the line in general. By forcing passengers onto specific trains if they'd otherwise have a full choice. I suppose if you added a York stop, the down train would remove York passengers from other services either side of the one mentioned that might have more stops before York.

 

[Sidious]

It's normally done in an attempt to manage capacity on the line in general. By forcing passengers onto specific trains if they'd otherwise have a full choice. I suppose if you added a York stop, the down train would remove York passengers from other services either side of the one mentioned that might have more stops before York.

That makes sense! Thanks.

 

[A-driver]

It's normally done in an attempt to manage capacity on the line in general. By forcing passengers onto specific trains if they'd otherwise have a full choice. I suppose if you added a York stop, the down train would remove York passengers from other services either side of the one mentioned that might have more stops before York.

Now adays some east coasts such as the 1200 kings x - Inverness are advertised at kings x as first stop Newcastle to prevent people travelling on them for York. It does stop at York but only to pick up. Before Xmas I saw an Aberdeen being advertised as first stop Edinburgh on the boards.

 

[flymo]

Now adays some east coasts such as the 1200 kings x - Inverness are advertised at kings x as first stop Newcastle to prevent people travelling on them for York. It does stop at York but only to pick up. Before Xmas I saw an Aberdeen being advertised as first stop Edinburgh on the boards.

You sure? East Coast are selling Advance Singles KX - York for this service tomorrow. If it was pick up only at York then that ticket would not be valid, (or would it?)

 

[A-driver]

You sure? East Coast are selling Advance Singles KX - York for this service tomorrow. If it was pick up only at York then that ticket would not be valid, (or would it?)

It may just be at busy times of year I have definitely seen EC services displayed as fast to Newcastle or Edinburgh in the past.

 

[Spaceflower]

Weren't booked times slackened off since the 90's to allow for more flexibility and a reduction in delay incurred fines?

 

[Sidious]

Weren't booked times slackened off since the 90's to allow for more flexibility and a reduction in delay incurred fines?

I'm not sure if they have been slackened so in the working timetable, but the public timetable has been padded with delay minutes.

 

[Oscar]

I'm not sure if they have been slackened so in the working timetable, but the public timetable has been padded with delay minutes.

The current Sectional Running Times on the East Coast Mainline in the working timetable are very tight and the allowances are very much required to keep the trains on time, so I would be surprised if working times have been slackened overall, but would be interested in seeing Sectional Running Times from the early 1990s.

 

[A-driver]

I don't see any problem with building in recovery time etc even if it is purely to reduce delay fines by the toc. Most passengers would prefer punctuality to speed. If a journey is advertised as 47 mins and the train arrives after 42 mins most passengers would be happy with that compared to advertising it as taking 42 mins and having it arrive far 46 mins.

 

[edwin_m]

I somewhat agree a reliable journey of a few minutes longer is better than one that is regularly missed. However with the general improvement in performance over the last 12 years or so I suggest it is now time to look at this again.

For example East Midlands Trains between London and Nottingham (both directions) routinely approach destination several minutes early, wait at the signal outside for the platform to be available and then arrive slightly late because the platform reoccupation time assumed a clear run in rather than a standing start.

 

[Bald Rick]

I somewhat agree a reliable journey of a few minutes longer is better than one that is regularly missed. However with the general improvement in performance over the last 12 years or so I suggest it is now time to look at this again.

For example East Midlands Trains between London and Nottingham (both directions) routinely approach destination several minutes early, wait at the signal outside for the platform to be available and then arrive slightly late because the platform reoccupation time assumed a clear run in rather than a standing start.

They won't be after the TT recast for 125 running. And PPM will fall as a result.

 

[edwin_m]

I've no doubt that the PPM will fall, since that is what everyone has been measuring and therefore targeting. It will be much more interesting to see what happens to time plus zero arrivals rather than time plus five or ten.

 

[Aldaniti]

It may just be at busy times of year I have definitely seen EC services displayed as fast to Newcastle or Edinburgh in the past.

You're right, I think York can sometimes be pick up only on certain trains around Easter and Christmas time. It's quite rare but does happen.