Rail in the North Group report

[yorksrob]

Its not perfect but i wouldn't describe it as poor. Except for Normanton and Elsecar.. :P

Perhaps poor is a bit strong There is a decent frequency between the major settlements after all. I just think that with a relatively minor adjustment, the route and its trains could be so much more beneficial to the local area.

 

[tbtc]

To put things into context - of the "smaller" stations between Sheffield and Leeds (i.e. the ones that the semi-fasts generally don't stop at) there's:

• Chapletown - 304,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Elsecar - 128,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Wombwell - 183,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Darton - 152,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Normanton - 212,000 passengers - one train an hour

So, based on the 2010/2011 figures on Wikepedia, Normanton and Darton look to be "punching above their weight" - note that all of the South Yorkshire stations lost some of their services when the timetable was recast (IIRC Normanton has just had one train an hour, certainly as far as I can remember - am sure YorksRob will correct me here).

But then these figures need to be taken against figures like the 1,448,000 for Barnsley (Barnsley gets a better service - four trains an hour, but the five stations in bullet points have a combined passenger number of under a million).

Chapletown is one of those urban stations that could attract significantly more passengers with a "turn up and go" frequency (there's a bus to Sheffield better than every five minutes), but is always going to struggle with just a half hourly service. Another reason for stopping the semi-fasts there is that its convenient for the M1, so the fact that the only Leeds service that it gets is the "scenic route" via Castleford (1h7 to do a thirty mile journey) means it's really uncompetative for rail.

The problem is that it already takes an hour for the "semi fasts" to do the thirty five miles from Sheffield to Leeds (as the crow flies) which makes rail unattractive - slowing services down further isn't going to help that.

IIRC of the five trains each hour from Sheffield to Leeds, three get overtaken (the Dearne Valley service, the Castleford service and one of the "semi-fasts"), which pushes most of the traffic onto either the xx.23 from Sheffield (the Voyager) or the xx.50 (the "semi fast" which only gets to Leeds around ten minutes before the following Voyager).

A pretty rubbish set up for two large cities.

 

[YorkshireBear]

To put things into context - of the "smaller" stations between Sheffield and Leeds (i.e. the ones that the semi-fasts generally don't stop at) there's:

• Chapletown - 304,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Elsecar - 128,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Wombwell - 183,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Darton - 152,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Normanton - 212,000 passengers - one train an hour

So, based on the 2010/2011 figures on Wikepedia, Normanton and Darton look to be "punching above their weight" - note that all of the South Yorkshire stations lost some of their services when the timetable was recast (IIRC Normanton has just had one train an hour, certainly as far as I can remember - am sure YorksRob will correct me here).

But then these figures need to be taken against figures like the 1,448,000 for Barnsley (Barnsley gets a better service - four trains an hour, but the five stations in bullet points have a combined passenger number of under a million).

Chapletown is one of those urban stations that could attract significantly more passengers with a "turn up and go" frequency (there's a bus to Sheffield better than every five minutes), but is always going to struggle with just a half hourly service. Another reason for stopping the semi-fasts there is that its convenient for the M1, so the fact that the only Leeds service that it gets is the "scenic route" via Castleford (1h7 to do a thirty mile journey) means it's really uncompetative for rail.

The problem is that it already takes an hour for the "semi fasts" to do the thirty five miles from Sheffield to Leeds (as the crow flies) which makes rail unattractive - slowing services down further isn't going to help that.

IIRC of the five trains each hour from Sheffield to Leeds, three get overtaken (the Dearne Valley service, the Castleford service and one of the "semi-fasts"), which pushes most of the traffic onto either the xx.23 from Sheffield (the Voyager) or the xx.50 (the "semi fast" which only gets to Leeds around ten minutes before the following Voyager).

A pretty rubbish set up for two large cities.

Its horrendous, parents live in Chapeltown and i go to uni in Leeds, Heading north is a nightmare! My other journey to Keighley is bad too. But to be fair to Chapeltown, if you know what your doing you can do it quicker, get off at Barnsley wait 10 minutes on same platform and get express to Leeds. This can be done with Huddersfield service too, so I do essentially have 2tph to Leeds.

The problem is linespeeds and signalling, it all needs an upgrade. Horbury especially. That junction IMHO shouldn't be a junction. It should just be where two separate pairs of tracks diverge.

 

[edwin_m]

I didn't mean to cast aspersions, but the people who will actually be taking the decisions will be politicians............go on - I dare you to say they know their stuff!

The people I know are council officers or some of my colleagues working for them as consultants. I don't know any of the politicians so I can leave that gauntlet on the ground.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

The problem is linespeeds and signalling, it all needs an upgrade. Horbury especially. That junction IMHO shouldn't be a junction. It should just be where two separate pairs of tracks diverge.

I believe this is being planned, and all seperation will be done at Kirkgate.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I believe this is being planned, and all seperation will be done at Kirkgate.

Thank god. Id be interested to see a source to see what else is being planned.

 

[yorksrob]

To put things into context - of the "smaller" stations between Sheffield and Leeds (i.e. the ones that the semi-fasts generally don't stop at) there's:

• Chapletown - 304,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Elsecar - 128,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Wombwell - 183,000 passengers - two trains an hour
• Darton - 152,000 passengers - one train an hour
• Normanton - 212,000 passengers - one train an hour

So, based on the 2010/2011 figures on Wikepedia, Normanton and Darton look to be "punching above their weight" - note that all of the South Yorkshire stations lost some of their services when the timetable was recast (IIRC Normanton has just had one train an hour, certainly as far as I can remember - am sure YorksRob will correct me here).

Absolutely correct, with the exception of an evening and a couple of morning fasts which stop in the peak.

Worth remembering also, that these are PTE stops and are likely to have metro card journeys under counted etc.

To look at it from another perspective, if the problem is one of Leeds - Sheffield passengers clogging up InterCity trains, isn't it about time Northern introduced a more competitively priced "route Barnsley" ticket. An off-peak day return between the two is showing as over a tenner, so there is more than enough scope in these days of recession for a bit of price manipulation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had a skim through the report.
The things that strike me are:
5.14 and 5.15 about the move to a seven day railway, and the need for enhanced services is good to see, although I'd rather see something specific about later evening local trains. 6.52 mentions demand "late at night", but I would rather it specifically mentioned currently inadequate evening local services, as distinct from longer distance inter-regional trains.

6.58 In off-peak periods in the week as well as at weekends, consideration needs to be given to whether the hours and frequency of operation match current demand patterns.

- Good stuff. Heartily agree.
5.31 - stations serving less than 5,000 passengers a year. The group needs to check that these stations aren't suffering from supressed demand due to an already sparse service (Denton and Reddish South spring to mind) and that the passenger usage figures are accurate and not suffering from a counting anomaly.
Short distance rail journeys,

5.32 for example from suburban stations to city centres, are often notably quicker than bus or car, particularly at peak times. However, the price of the rail journey is often cheaper than travelling by bus or car (where there is a need to pay for car parking in the city centre).51 Accommodating these shorter distance low yield trips places a constraint on capacity and can deter longer distance travel which is of greater value to the rail industry.

This is setting alarm bells ringing to be honest. They need to recognise that these short distance suburban services are often vital in controlling congestion in those cities. They should also be wary of "value for money" comparisons with car (not everyone can afford one anyway) and bus services, which are often expensive due to poor value unregulated fares structures (lack of return tickets etc).

5.33 In the North, fares within the PTE and other county areas are generally relatively low compared to the fares for crossing administrative boundaries. This encourages rail heading to stations where fares are cheaper and may dissuade commuters from travelling by rail from their nearest station, which brings local environmental and congestion impacts.

Agree, although this should be through bringing cross boundary fares to a more competitive level rather than raising PTE fares.

5.43 The idea of reinstating closed railway lines often attracts support. In practice, the circumstances where this would be worthwhile are limited. For such investment to be worthwhile it is likely that there will need to be a real economic barrier to overcome –most likely connecting areas of major disadvantage with an employment growth area – and sufficient scale of demand to make the investment economically worthwhile and financially acceptable.

Disappointing - although Skipton - Colne surely counts as linking an area with a real economic barrier (Colne, Nelson) with an employment growth area (Leeds).

6.33 The continuing electrification programme must not result in ‗breaks‘ in existing longer distance services at the end-points of the electrified area. There should be no significant loss of connectivity for those places which remain served by nonelectrified routes – and there are options available on how this can be achieved.

This is quite relevant to electrification discussions. A firm preference against splitting off TP branches - good to see.

6.65 The North is not lacking in rail network; for some key city pairs there is still a choice of routes and while some branch lines have closed, many remain and over the last thirty years, stations have re-opened, and, in general services have expanded. Yet, it hardly feels to users like a single network, and it is hard to navigate and difficult to understand. The fares system is uneven and complex and the multiplicity of serviceproviders can be off-putting too. To illustrate this point, of the 173m trips from stations within the North of England, only around 12% included a rail interchange65 A central theme of this Strategy is to overcome barriers to interchange and thereby enhance the reach of the North‘s rail network.

This is a very good point. The statistic that only 12% of journeys involve an interchange is very telling. I heartily agree with the philosophy that the network should be looked at as an integrated network rather than the Mc Nulty vision of a lot of odds and ends to be broken off.
The report also has good things to say about the community railways

7.70 By going for a substantial network of lines it becomes possible to get some scale benefits. None of the above lines are electrified and by developing a dedicated diesel fleet adapted for the needs of community rail routes would be a major benefit of this approach. As electrification develops, NCR could soak up surplus DMUs.

Music to my ears. Also mentions joint marketing opportunities for these routes.
All in all, a very encouraging report, although there are bits I would view with caution.

 

[wigwamman]

How realistic is it for the North to be D00 by 2019 though,the report mentions that sprinters should be phased out by 2024 but surely it is not worth the cost of converting stock too Doo if the stock is only going to be around for 5 years after conversion.
Would it not be more cost effective to wait until sprinters are gone before new D00 stock is built and ready ?

 

[Darren R]

How realistic is it for the North to be D00 by 2019 though,the report mentions that sprinters should be phased out by 2024 but surely it is not worth the cost of converting stock too Doo if the stock is only going to be around for 5 years after conversion.
Would it not be more cost effective to wait until sprinters are gone before new D00 stock is built and ready ?

Personally speaking I'd rather that we don't go over to DOO at all - and I dare say there's a fair few people who work on the railway who'd agree!

Ignoring all the arguments about DOO (as there are threads about that topic elsewhere), I'm not sure how practical it would be to roll out DOO across the current Northern/FTPE areas. (Can't speak about Merseyrail - I don't know it well enough.) A large proportion of the stations are unstaffed, either all day or post-rush hour. Ticket machines on these stations (where provided, which is by no means all unstaffed stations) are Card-only for obvious security reasons. How can a network with so many unstaffed stations without ticket machines be suitable for DOO? I know there is mention in the report about the aspiration for making more stations staffed but there is no way that will include every station.

 

[Gareth]

I doubt the aspiration is for every service in the North to be DOO. Rather, they want to introduce it as much as possible where it's considered practical.

 

[tbtc]

Personally speaking I'd rather that we don't go over to DOO at all - and I dare say there's a fair few people who work on the railway who'd agree!

Ignoring all the arguments about DOO (as there are threads about that topic elsewhere), I'm not sure how practical it would be to roll out DOO across the current Northern/FTPE areas. (Can't speak about Merseyrail - I don't know it well enough.) A large proportion of the stations are unstaffed, either all day or post-rush hour. Ticket machines on these stations (where provided, which is by no means all unstaffed stations) are Card-only for obvious security reasons. How can a network with so many unstaffed stations without ticket machines be suitable for DOO? I know there is mention in the report about the aspiration for making more stations staffed but there is no way that will include every station.

Given the lack of ticket checks on a lot of Northern services (due to Guards working the doors on services with frequent stops), would it make much difference though?

of the 173m trips from stations within the North of England, only around 12% included a rail interchange

This is a very good point. The statistic that only 12% of journeys involve an interchange is very telling

I've been mulling this over for the past day and I don't know whether the 12/88 split (between journeys that use more than one train/ journeys that only require one train) is high or low?

I'm not sure what the benchmark figure I'd have come up with if you'd asked me the question would have been.

The problem is how we interpret this:

• Is it a sign that we are doing well by providing direct services to suit almost nine journeys out of ten?
• Is it a sign that "local" routes and "longer distance" routes are separate (so we shouldn't get hamstrung by the idea that the long distance passengers depend upon branchlines too?)?
• What journeys are the 12% making (that requires a change)? Are they trips like Chapletown to Leeds (which has a direct hourly service but YorkshireBear points out is faster and more frequent if you change at Barnsley)? Are there any significant direct links not being met (like Burnley to Manchester or Southport to Preston or Colne to Skipton where a significant number of people are making regular journey that requires a change)?
• How does this compare to figures elsewhere in the UK?
• Is there an "ideal" split (since we are never going to be able to link every two stations - even if we did then there'd be examples where it was quicker to change anyway)?

88% sounds like an important number, but I'm not sure whether its bigger or smaller than I'd have expected/ wanted. Can anyone else help me out here?

 

[edwin_m]

I would hope any DOO is on the Strathclyde system where there is a second member of staff on board to look after ticket duties. August's Modern Railways has an interesting editorial about how this has been introduced in Strathclyde without problems, by promising continued employment for the guards. It also also mentions that fitting on-train cameras appears to be worthwhile even on relatively old units. In addition to this, GSM-R provides the enhanced radio functions that are needed for DOO.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would hope any DOO is on the Strathclyde system where there is a second member of staff on board to look after ticket duties. August's Modern Railways has an interesting editorial about how this has been introduced in Strathclyde without problems, by promising continued employment for the guards. It also also mentions that fitting on-train cameras appears to be worthwhile even on relatively old units. In addition to this, GSM-R provides the enhanced radio functions that are needed for DOO.

Thats how I think DOO should be done. You still get the benefit of reduced dwell times.

 

[Deerfold]

Given the lack of ticket checks on a lot of Northern services (due to Guards working the doors on services with frequent stops), would it make much difference though?

If guards disappeared from the Shipley triangle services then ticket sales will drop enormously - both from those trying it on and those who really do end up not able to buy a ticket.

I've been mulling this over for the past day and I don't know whether the 12/88 split (between journeys that use more than one train/ journeys that only require one train) is high or low?

I'm wondering how they work it out - is it from ticket sales or surveys? The most common journeys I do involve more than 1 ticket - with a split where I change trains, so I'd look like I don't change if looking at ticket sales.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If guards disappeared from the Shipley triangle services then ticket sales will drop enormously - both from those trying it on and those who really do end up not able to buy a ticket.

Northerns only real ticket check guaranteed line.

 

[Deerfold]

Northerns only real ticket check guaranteed line.

Nope. I'm commonly checked but there's a sizeable minority of times I'm not - and I'm usually on a train for at least 20 minutes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Nope. I'm commonly checked but there's a sizeable minority of times I'm not - and I'm usually on a train for at least 20 minutes.

I get checked 95% time between Keighley and Leeds.

 

[WatcherZero]

Personally speaking I'd rather that we don't go over to DOO at all - and I dare say there's a fair few people who work on the railway who'd agree!

Ignoring all the arguments about DOO (as there are threads about that topic elsewhere), I'm not sure how practical it would be to roll out DOO across the current Northern/FTPE areas. (Can't speak about Merseyrail - I don't know it well enough.) A large proportion of the stations are unstaffed, either all day or post-rush hour. Ticket machines on these stations (where provided, which is by no means all unstaffed stations) are Card-only for obvious security reasons. How can a network with so many unstaffed stations without ticket machines be suitable for DOO? I know there is mention in the report about the aspiration for making more stations staffed but there is no way that will include every station.

DOO doesnt mean there isnt someone on board selling and checking tickets, it refers to who operates the doors and who gives the authority for the train to leave the platform. It usually increases the onboard checking of tickets because the guard doesnt have to return to the rear cab at every station and reduces the wage cost as he has fewer duties and no longer performing safety critical tasks.

 

[yorksrob]

I've been mulling this over for the past day and I don't know whether the 12/88 split (between journeys that use more than one train/ journeys that only require one train) is high or low?

I'm not sure what the benchmark figure I'd have come up with if you'd asked me the question would have been.

The problem is how we interpret this:

• Is it a sign that we are doing well by providing direct services to suit almost nine journeys out of ten?
• Is it a sign that "local" routes and "longer distance" routes are separate (so we shouldn't get hamstrung by the idea that the long distance passengers depend upon branchlines too?)?
• What journeys are the 12% making (that requires a change)? Are they trips like Chapletown to Leeds (which has a direct hourly service but YorkshireBear points out is faster and more frequent if you change at Barnsley)? Are there any significant direct links not being met (like Burnley to Manchester or Southport to Preston or Colne to Skipton where a significant number of people are making regular journey that requires a change)?
• How does this compare to figures elsewhere in the UK?
• Is there an "ideal" split (since we are never going to be able to link every two stations - even if we did then there'd be examples where it was quicker to change anyway)?

88% sounds like an important number, but I'm not sure whether its bigger or smaller than I'd have expected/ wanted. Can anyone else help me out here?

That's an interesting point. I wonder if commuting has an effect of skewing this figure as a lot of people will commute directly into "their" centre, and since Northern cities tend to be more compact, there will be less need for them to travel beyond Piccadilly, Lime Street or Paragon.

A more telling statistic might be if they could seperate out leisure travel. You might reasonably expect people to travel to a wider range of destinations for leisure, and if these showed a low number of changes, it would be more conclusive evidence that people weren't thinking of the railway as an integrated network and a way of going further afield than their local city.

 

[tbtc]

That's an interesting point. I wonder if commuting has an effect of skewing this figure as a lot of people will commute directly into "their" centre, and since Northern cities tend to be more compact, there will be less need for them to travel beyond Piccadilly, Lime Street or Paragon

True

A more telling statistic might be if they could seperate out leisure travel. You might reasonably expect people to travel to a wider range of destinations for leisure, and if these showed a low number of changes, it would be more conclusive evidence that people weren't thinking of the railway as an integrated network and a way of going further afield than their local city.

Its tricky.

You could argue that a low number of people changing trains is a good thing (i.e. the network is clearly providing direct trains to suit most journeys) or that a low number of people changing trains is a bad thing (i.e. connections are so bad that people are being put off journeys that involve a change of trains).

And then there's the journeys where a change of train may allow a faster journey (like the Chapletown - Leeds example I quoted earlier) or may allow a more frequent journey (like Bradford to York - one direct train an hour but both cities have a frequent service to Leeds, so anyone may be more tempted to jump on the first Leeds-bound train rather than waiting for a direct one).

I agree with Deerfold regarding how the figures are worked out though - quoting 88% (rather than a round number) suggests it's been calculated rather than a finger in the air, but how would you pick up on all of these things?

 

[WatcherZero]

Presumably their simply using the ticket sale data, origin and destination.

 

[tbtc]

Presumably their simply using the ticket sale data, origin and destination.

...but how would that pick up when people are changing trains on a route where they could travel directly (like the Chapletown - Leeds or Bradford - York examples that I gave)?

 

[edwin_m]

A MOIRA-type model might be able to estimate how many journeys require a change of train. Or they could just be taking a simplistic approach and assuming everyone takes the through train if there is one (say) every hour.

It would also be reasonably easy to split out season tickets from the data (PTE tickets are usually omitted anyway) to get separate figures for travel-to-work and (mostly) other travel purposes.

 

[wigwamman]

Have the Doo scotrail services been retrospectively fitted with cctv and in cab monitors so that drivers can operate the doors.
While this may pay if you are going to have units for 10 or 20 years plus,would it be cost effective on units that only have a shelflife of around 10 years left ?

 

[Darren R]

DOO doesnt mean there isnt someone on board selling and checking tickets, it refers to who operates the doors and who gives the authority for the train to leave the platform. It usually increases the onboard checking of tickets because the guard doesnt have to return to the rear cab at every station and reduces the wage cost as he has fewer duties and no longer performing safety critical tasks.

Yes, that's a fair (fare?!) point I suppose. (Sorry NorthernGuard!)

In regards the percentage of passengers making direct journeys, it would be interesting to see how that figure compares both nationally and TOC by TOC. I'm guessing the majority of rail journeys in urban areas are made by commuters - there is therefore every possibility that train routes and services is something that many commuters consider when chosing where to live in relation to their work (or indeed vice versa in better economic times!) Certianly in London there is anecdotal evidence that this is the case - there is no reason to think it's not the same everywhere else. They chose to live there because there are trains to where they need to go.

And of course if that is the case, then fares/season ticket prices plays a part too. PTE-subsidised fares certainly seem to make a difference to commuting patterns both on both sides of the Pennines.

 

[IanXC]

Northerns only real ticket check guaranteed line.

In West Yorkshire perhaps?

DOO doesnt mean there isnt someone on board selling and checking tickets, it refers to who operates the doors and who gives the authority for the train to leave the platform. It usually increases the onboard checking of tickets because the guard doesnt have to return to the rear cab at every station and reduces the wage cost as he has fewer duties and no longer performing safety critical tasks.

If we're measuring the case for DOO in terms of dwell times and time spent by the guard doing dispatch, I wonder how the case changes when a 333 or a 158 is used (door controls in each vehicle) as compared to a 142 or a 321 (which only have controls at the rear door (and 1 intermediate for a 321)?)?

 

[edwin_m]

Having controls at most of the doors certainly makes a difference to the dwell times and/or to the amount of revenue work that can be done between stops (depending which of the two the person concerned prioritises). I seem to recall Merseyrail fitted controls at every door on the 507/508 units for this very reason. But having the driver resposible for the doors would be even better in this respect.

 

[AndyHudds]

The strategy is good in principle but as it points out there is no chance to effect anything within the next control period 2014/19, therefore any benefits will come after and will not be immediate.

 

[WatcherZero]

Long term infrastructure and operational changes yes, however they will have a chance to make significant organisational changes from refranchising and a recast timetable during that period.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Long term infrastructure and operational changes yes, however they will have a chance to make significant organisational changes from refranchising and a recast timetable during that period.

Do you think that there will be the will existing to make these changes ?