Why do many railway lines in this country run at a loss instead of being replaced by alternative modes?

[option]

A good question to which there are good answers. First, large expenditure on local roads by the local authority is often financed by a grant from Central Government. Second, local authorities have their own revenue stream from motorists in the form of parking charges and fines. I have to pay to park outside my house. Third, if a house has its own garage, the council tax on that property will be higher. Fourth, in London we have what is fraudulently called a congestion charge.

Incidentally, many local authorities, particularly in London, spend very little on roads for the benefit of motorists. They spend a lot on cycle lanes and low traffic schemes but neglect fundamentals such as road surfaces and drains.

You've decided that everything that London does is also done everywhere else.
Not the case at all!

Government grant funding to LAs is being constantly cut. They are increasingly retaining Business Rates, but that revenue isn't road-user specific.
Birmingham has a few residents parking schemes, the outside of the city centre ones are £19 per year.
Fines is less than £5m per year.
The highways budget is ~£100m per year for Birmingham, with the central gov grant covering half of that.
But central gov grant funding is being cut; https://www.expressandstar.com/news...est-midlands-roads-cut-by-around-40-per-cent/

Own garage doesn't mean the council tax will be higher than all other properties. Plenty of roads full of terraced houses that are a higher council tax band than semi's with a garage.

Cycle lanes, LTNs etc cost very little to implement, have very low maintenance costs.

 

[nw1]

This is true - also for Royal Wooton Bassett, Wellington, Collumpton etc.

And one could argue - why not give these sizable towns the local service they need, even if that means reducing the frequency of the long-distance services a little?

Are four fast trains an hour London-Bristol (as was the case in the new Dec 2019 timetable) actually needed; why not two trains an hour and some reopenings to free up a path for a semi-fast London to Bristol (run with a 387 or similar) calling at say Reading, Didcot, Wantage Road, Swindon, Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham, Bath, Keynsham, and Bristol - giving several not-insignficant towns a rail service? Said semi-fast could depart immediately behind one of the two remaining fasts. and with 4 to 5 additional stops (depending on whether the fasts stop at Didcot) would presumably not be caught up - particularly as the line speed is pretty slow in the Bath area. Could always be looped somewhere like Swindon if necessary.

Likewise Wellington could be served by that new two-hourly Exeter terminator, stops in that area seem perfectly made for this service. Again, are two XCs an hour south of Bristol (that was the plan I know, not sure if it's been implemented yet) actually needed, outside the peak summer season? Why not just make the one XC longer?

 

[yorksrob]

And one could argue - why not give these sizable towns the local service they need, even if that means reducing the frequency of the long-distance services a little?

Are four fast trains an hour London-Bristol (as was the case in the new Dec 2019 timetable) actually needed; why not two trains an hour and some reopenings to free up a path for a semi-fast London to Bristol (run with a 387 or similar) calling at say Reading, Didcot, Wantage Road, Swindon, Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham, Bath, Keynsham, and Bristol - giving several not-insignficant towns a rail service? Said semi-fast could depart immediately behind one of the two remaining fasts. and with 4 to 5 additional stops (depending on whether the fasts stop at Didcot) would presumably not be caught up - particularly as the line speed is pretty slow in the Bath area. Could always be looped somewhere like Swindon if necessary.

Likewise Wellington could be served by that new two-hourly Exeter terminator, stops in that area seem perfectly made for this service. Again, are two XCs an hour south of Bristol (that was the plan I know, not sure if it's been implemented yet) actually needed, outside the peak summer season? Why not just make the one XC longer?

That's an argument worth considering in light of changed travel patterns. It might be that one out of four services would be more use as a semi-fast taking in some of these places.

In a way, The British Rail InterCity network has always been a bit of a compromise, taking in market towns as well as major cities (and that has been one of its strengths to my mind).

 

[Ianno87]

Are four fast trains an hour London-Bristol (as was the case in the new Dec 2019 timetable) actually needed; why not two trains an hour and some reopenings to free up a path for a semi-fast London to Bristol (run with a 387 or similar) calling at say Reading, Didcot, Wantage Road, Swindon, Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham, Bath, Keynsham, and Bristol - giving several not-insignficant towns a rail service?

4tph London-Bristol stands to be very, very revenue generational, even if it's not "needed" to meet demand.

It's almost a Network South East style "make best use of resources all day to generate revenue at marginal cost".

 

[mike57]

Probably a good example of what happens when you have 'Inter City', regional, and stopping trains sharing a basic 2 track railway is the Leeds Manchester route, there is a demand for a 'proper' fast Inter City Leeds - Manchester service but this has to share tracks with the stopping services, which also serve some significant population centres and are well used. There have been a number of changes over the years to try and reconcile the various needs, none of which have completely solved the problems. The last set of major changes in May 2018 threw the whole network into meltdown. Plans are in the pipeline to 4 track some of the route, but the current service pattern is really a set of compromises, Intercity trains trying to act as local commuter services, e.g. stops at Crossgates, Greenfield etc. Stopping service patterns dictated by the needs to get the West of Manchester to North and East of Leeds services and reverse through the corridor. It doesn't really deliver at the moment, but the cost of sorting it properly is probably prohibitive.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably a good example of what happens when you have 'Inter City', regional, and stopping trains sharing a basic 2 track railway is the Leeds Manchester route, there is a demand for a 'proper' fast Inter City Leeds - Manchester service but this has to share tracks with the stopping services, which also serve some significant population centres and are well used. There have been a number of changes over the years to try and reconcile the various needs, none of which have completely solved the problems. The last set of major changes in May 2018 threw the whole network into meltdown. Plans are in the pipeline to 4 track some of the route, but the current service pattern is really a set of compromises, Intercity trains trying to act as local commuter services, e.g. stops at Crossgates, Greenfield etc. Stopping service patterns dictated by the needs to get the West of Manchester to North and East of Leeds services and reverse through the corridor. It doesn't really deliver at the moment, but the cost of sorting it properly is probably prohibitive.

That's always an interesting one because the bit in the middle doesn't seem to be the problem. You can have a couple of true expresses an hour going fast Leeds - Manchester stopping only at a couple of stations (including Huddersfield) with others to other stopping patterns and still have a pretty swift journey through the hills. It's the approach to Manchester that is painfully slow !

 

[norbitonflyer]

If China is the comparison, it's structurally very different from the UK - a similar number of cities but they are "megacities" and the distances between them are massive.

Quite so. Eighteen months ago hardly anyone over here had heard of Wuhan, yet it is bigger than London, with a population of 11 million. And it is only the ninth largest city in China.

No other "city" in the UK would even make it into China's top 40

 

[mike57]

That's always an interesting one because the bit in the middle doesn't seem to be the problem. You can have a couple of true expresses an hour going fast Leeds - Manchester stopping only at a couple of stations (including Huddersfield) with others to other stopping patterns and still have a pretty swift journey through the hills. It's the approach to Manchester that is painfully slow !

I dont think its just service pattern, its also rolling stock, 68 + Mk5 and 802s are 'InterCity', doors at the ends, suits the needs of longer distance journeys, comfortable for long distance passengers, then you introduce 'commuter/local' stops, people trying to get on and off through end doors, longer dwell times, probable overcrowding. Then there are the 185's, ideal for the shorter distance between stops, shorter journeys, but a two hour plus journey in hot or cold weather results in 'thermal cycling' of the long distance passengers, and 1/3 2/3 doors dont really suit the intercity needs, and 3 coach non gangwayed sets create problems when you try and run a 6 car train Its all part of the compromises that have to be made when you try and run all the services down the same 2 track railway.

On my journeys across the Pennines the morning Seamer - Manchester leg is usually not too bad, delays always seem to occur on the return, and the main places where delays accumulate seem to be east of Huddersfield and Leeds - Micklefield.

 

[BrianW]

Probably a good example of what happens when you have 'Inter City', regional, and stopping trains sharing a basic 2 track railway is the Leeds Manchester route, there is a demand for a 'proper' fast Inter City Leeds - Manchester service but this has to share tracks with the stopping services, which also serve some significant population centres and are well used. There have been a number of changes over the years to try and reconcile the various needs, none of which have completely solved the problems. The last set of major changes in May 2018 threw the whole network into meltdown. Plans are in the pipeline to 4 track some of the route, but the current service pattern is really a set of compromises, Intercity trains trying to act as local commuter services, e.g. stops at Crossgates, Greenfield etc. Stopping service patterns dictated by the needs to get the West of Manchester to North and East of Leeds services and reverse through the corridor. It doesn't really deliver at the moment, but the cost of sorting it properly is probably prohibitive.

It's amazing 'the system' works at all. Goodness knows how many companies building lines for here to wherever, coming into howevermany i 1923, then 4, then 1, then several, then 1-ish ... with lines, stations, stops, opening and closing, freight up, down and out, Parcels, TPOs, sleepers, catering, cities and towns and travel growing and declining ...

So trying to run anything today on yesterday's lines, a conundrum at best. The planners have a near impossible task, even without elected politicians inserting their spokes.

Everyone is trying, thanklessly, to get the most best out of what's there (thus compromises) while seeking the best use of limited funds to improve matters where they will achieve the best improvements.

FWIW I think the cuts made in say the 60s were logical, and saved more massive cuts later. Other threads testify to the range of inputs as to why this or that should be done, spending other people's money. It seems to be generally thought right that the largest centres should be linked by fast and or frequent services to enable face-to-face meeting, which may be by air, train, bus, car (etc?). There are othe considerations, like emissions, convenience, comfort, price, and the government rightly has a role, including to 'subsidise' support solutions that 'providers' might not otherwise provide. In UK electorates have a role in determining the kind and amount of such 'interventions'; in China the party.

Myself (!) I would like to see more investment 'up north' and in Wales. When I see the journeys of Michael Portillo (less so Susan Calman or Julie Walters or Tim Dunn, lovely as they are) I see lots of 2 or 3-car trains packed to the gunnels except when he's up at the crack of dawn. Who decided who got what for stock? I'm waiting to see the 'approved list' and programme of electrification/ decarboning projects- soon?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Several unhappy compromises. Relatively large towns like Tuxford, which would probably still have a station were it not to have the misfortune to be on the East Coast Main Line and calls there would delay long distance services. Wantage (Road) is another example. Some, like Ashchurch, have reopened.

Conversely, where there remains a stopping service on a main line, for example the Trent Valley route, or the ECML in Northumberland, or Pewsey, the service is irregular and infrequent as it has to fit between with the long distance services. Look at the very limited service the new station at Reston will get.

I agree, but I don't think that bears out @miklcct's point that "the express trains are not really frequent or fast enough to provide a truly competitive service except from a few key routes into London, because the companies need to find some combinations of trains to stop at the rural stations". The service provided (or not!) at Tuxford, Wantage Road, or Ashchurch isn't compromising the express service.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

IAn interesting statistic would be the proportion of revenue and journeys that originate or finish using local or branch line services. If these services were removed I would predict that over 75% of this revenue would be lost.

Is absolutely incorrect. Depending on your definition of ‘local’ or ‘branch line’ services. A very significant majority of people using long distance services do not use a connecting train. They may use a bus or tube (particularly in London), but that is a different question. Many of those who do use connecting trains are not on a branch line. And of those that do, it is reasonable to assume that some would find another way to reach the main line service. I’m afraid I can’t share the data.

Is it incorrect? I read @mike57's remark as being that, if you closed the branch lines/local services, then 75% of that part of the revenue on long distance trains that arises from journeys ending on those branch lines would be lost. That's not the same as 75% of the total revenue on the long-distance trains. In other words, if you - say - closed the Windermere branch, then the WCML @mike57's guess is that the WCML would lose 75% of its Preston-Kendal and London-Windermere etc. fare revenue. That's obviously a tiny proportion of the total WCML revenue, but still a lot higher than the total revenue you'd measure if you were looking only at journeys or part journeys just between Oxenholme and Windermere. As a guess, 75% seems reasonable-ish to me.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it incorrect? I read @mike57's remark as being that, if you closed the branch lines/local services, then 75% of that part of the revenue on long distance trains that arises from journeys ending on those branch lines would be lost. That's not the same as 75% of the total revenue on the long-distance trains. In other words, if you - say - closed the Windermere branch, then the WCML @mike57's guess is that the WCML would lose 75% of its Preston-Kendal and London-Windermere etc. fare revenue. That's obviously a tiny proportion of the total WCML revenue, but still a lot higher than the total revenue you'd measure if you were looking only at journeys or part journeys just between Oxenholme and Windermere. As a guess, 75% seems reasonable-ish to me.

Ah, I read it differently, ie that if you closed the branch lines you’d lose 75% of main line revenue.

 

[mike57]

Ah, I read it differently, ie that if you closed the branch lines you’d lose 75% of main line revenue.

@DynamicSpirit's interpretation of my post is correct, 75% of revenue from journeys that started or finished on the branch

 

[Bald Rick]

@DynamicSpirit's interpretation of my post is correct, 75% of revenue from journeys that started or finished on the branch

Ah, thank you, and my apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[RuralRambler]

Is there a particular reason the transport solution must be a train throughout?

1. Wasted time. Train <> Bus connection usually take longer than train<>train and aren't as convenient.
2. Some "main" railway stations aren't close to the town's "main" bus station, meaning long walks, taxis or change of bus needed.
3. Cost is almost always higher when doing different modes of transport due to lack of integrated tickets.
4. Outside main commuter routes, many main rail stations have little/no affordable parking.
5. Train <> train connections are protected if running late, i.e. you get a taxi if late running or cancelling means you miss the last train of the day.

Now, of course, IF there was a proper integrated public transport system, most of those points could be resolved.

 

[mike57]

To develop this loss of revenue thought further:

I am going to assume that 25% - 30% (seems like a reasonable number based on people watching, but if anyone has any better data feel free to share) of 'main line' journeys originate or start on a branch line or are to or from stations only served by local services so involve a change at a hub station. If 75% of the 25%-30% is lost this equates to a loss of revenue to the main line of 20%. For a given level of service that 20% will need to be covered, either reduce the service, subsidise the service or put fares up. If you reduce the service or put fares up then you will loose more revenue as less people will travel. If you subsidise the main line then the savings you made by closing the loss making branch and local services are being eroded. So you either have a smaller railway which still requires subsidy or you have a shrinking rail system.

Not every rail service will make a profit, but unless there are early and late services, branch line and local services available the system isnt comprehisive enough to be useful and usage will fall. Even if you accept that you have to drive and park at a main line station, what if your day is extended, and you miss your intended train home, the last train has now been cancelled because its been running at 20% capacity. Its your fault your day was extended, the meeting overran, or whatever, but the next time you travel you will drive.

 

[HSTEd]

1. Wasted time. Train <> Bus connection usually take longer than train<>train and aren't as convenient.
2. Some "main" railway stations aren't close to the town's "main" bus station, meaning long walks, taxis or change of bus needed.
3. Cost is almost always higher when doing different modes of transport due to lack of integrated tickets.
4. Outside main commuter routes, many main rail stations have little/no affordable parking.
5. Train <> train connections are protected if running late, i.e. you get a taxi if late running or cancelling means you miss the last train of the day.

Now, of course, IF there was a proper integrated public transport system, most of those points could be resolved.

Well I'd argue they could all be.

 

[nw1]

4tph London-Bristol stands to be very, very revenue generational, even if it's not "needed" to meet demand.

It's almost a Network South East style "make best use of resources all day to generate revenue at marginal cost".

This does then lead to the philosophical question of 'what the railway is for'.

Is it supposed to be a means to generate revenue, or provide a public service?

Should the railway be encouraging people to make journeys they don't 'need' to do (do people actually need to travel long distances within the UK every 2 weeks rather than every month, say) to generate revenue? Or should it be about providing as many significantly-sized towns near or on the railway as possible with a usable service (as well as the obvious need to provide good commuter services, of course).

IMV (not necessarily the right one) the balance has shifted too far towards revenue generation and not enough towards public service, which means main lines are full of fast services to here, there and everywhere and there's no room for the local services (the Edinburgh to Newcastle is a case in point, does it need more than 2 ICs an hour? Why not just run one LNER and one XC, and get everyone else to change at Newcastle?) Also, a lot of trains are not running at full-platform-length (XC springs to mind here especially), meaning you could reduce the frequency by 50% (except for peak times), run all the remaining services with double rather than single Voyagers, and still provide the same number of seats.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You've decided that everything that London does is also done everywhere else.
Not the case at all!

Government grant funding to LAs is being constantly cut. They are increasingly retaining Business Rates, but that revenue isn't road-user specific.
Birmingham has a few residents parking schemes, the outside of the city centre ones are £19 per year.
Fines is less than £5m per year.
The highways budget is ~£100m per year for Birmingham, with the central gov grant covering half of that.
But central gov grant funding is being cut; https://www.expressandstar.com/news...est-midlands-roads-cut-by-around-40-per-cent/

Own garage doesn't mean the council tax will be higher than all other properties. Plenty of roads full of terraced houses that are a higher council tax band than semi's with a garage.

Cycle lanes, LTNs etc cost very little to implement, have very low maintenance costs.

If Birmingham has resident parking schemes and a 50% road grant from Central Government, then clearly what I posted does not apply only to London. Resident parking schemes in outer suburbs are frequently lower than in inner suburbs and therefore don't provide the biggest revenue. I didn't suggest that a house with its own garage will incur higher council tax than any other house, regardless of other factors. My point is that a garage will increase the rateable value of a house and will bring additional income to the local authority.

 

[nw1]

Probably a good example of what happens when you have 'Inter City', regional, and stopping trains sharing a basic 2 track railway is the Leeds Manchester route, there is a demand for a 'proper' fast Inter City Leeds - Manchester service but this has to share tracks with the stopping services, which also serve some significant population centres and are well used. There have been a number of changes over the years to try and reconcile the various needs, none of which have completely solved the problems. The last set of major changes in May 2018 threw the whole network into meltdown. Plans are in the pipeline to 4 track some of the route, but the current service pattern is really a set of compromises, Intercity trains trying to act as local commuter services, e.g. stops at Crossgates, Greenfield etc. Stopping service patterns dictated by the needs to get the West of Manchester to North and East of Leeds services and reverse through the corridor. It doesn't really deliver at the moment, but the cost of sorting it properly is probably prohibitive.

Again, for this journey - what was wrong with the 'old' pattern? You had 3 or 4 trains an hour Manchester to Leeds off peak (either of which is surely frequent enough for anyone!) a number of years ago and genuine, 150-operated stopping trains still managed to fit in. I know that pattern was still running in 2014, as I actually used one of the 150 services from one of the small stations on the Pennines (I forget the name, sorry - the one just east of the Pennine Way). They split the locals at Huddersfield to help with pathing, which made sense IMO as presumably west of there people gravitate towards Manchester, and east, towards Leeds.

Once again rather than providing huge numbers of trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester, could they not just have made the existing 3 or 4 trains longer, to keep providing a genuine stopping service and keep the fast services fast, but less crowded?

I know that if I had to commute Leeds-Manchester or v.v., what I'd be looking for is a long, uncrowded, fast train, with say 20-minute frequency. Three trains an hour at maximum length and with only limited stops at significant towns would do me.

 

[yorksrob]

Again, for this journey - what was wrong with the 'old' pattern? You had 3 or 4 trains an hour Manchester to Leeds off peak (either of which is surely frequent enough for anyone!) a number of years ago and genuine, 150-operated stopping trains still managed to fit in. I know that pattern was still running in 2014, as I actually used one of the 150 services from one of the small stations on the Pennines (I forget the name, sorry - the one just east of the Pennine Way)

Once again rather than providing huge numbers of trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester, could they not just have made the existing 3 or 4 trains longer, to provide a genuine stopping service and keep the fast services fast?

I know that if I had to commute Leeds-Manchester or v.v., what I'd be looking for is a long, uncrowded, fast train, with say 20-minute frequency. Three trains an hour at maximum length and with only limited stops at significant towns would do me.

And that old pattern was run with short mainly three carriage trains. Now TPE has a much larger fleet and longer trains.

 

[nw1]

And that old pattern was run with short mainly three carriage trains. Now TPE has a much larger fleet and longer trains.

Exactly, that's my point. Keep the old pattern, but run them with longer trains.
Then you get the improved capacity, without messing things up for a) the stopping trains, which can still run and b) the fast trains, having to stop them at small village stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, that's my point. Keep the old pattern, but run them with longer trains.
Then you get the improved capacity, without messing things up for a) the stopping trains, which can still run and b) the fast trains, having to stop them at small village stations.

TPE arguably still isn't operating long trains - 5-car isn't long. There does need to be a programme of 200m platform extensions to prepare for NPR and run proper length trains.

 

[mike57]

Again, for this journey - what was wrong with the 'old' pattern? You had 3 or 4 trains an hour Manchester to Leeds off peak (either of which is surely frequent enough for anyone!) a number of years ago and genuine, 150-operated stopping trains still managed to fit in. I know that pattern was still running in 2014, as I actually used one of the 150 services from one of the small stations on the Pennines (I forget the name, sorry - the one just east of the Pennine Way)

Once again rather than providing huge numbers of trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester, could they not just have made the existing 3 or 4 trains longer, to provide a genuine stopping service and keep the fast services fast?

I know that if I had to commute Leeds-Manchester or v.v., what I'd be looking for is a long, uncrowded, fast train, with say 20-minute frequency. Three trains an hour at maximum length and with only limited stops at significant towns would do me.

I totally agree, 4 trains an hour was the service up until 2015 I think. If Leeds - Manchester is a turn up and go service then a 15 min wait is not unreasonable. Run the 'Inter City' Service at the max length that can be accomodated, stopping at Huddersfield, only no 'commuter stops' between York and Manchester. At the Eastern end one each per hour to/from Hull, Scarborough, Middlesborough and Newcastle, at the Western end run every 3rd train to Liverpool, with with the other 2 terminating at Man Airport. This will give all the eastern destinations direct services to both the Airport and Liverpool, if your journey is time bound, one change, if not and you have luggage or or not mobile, then you can pick a through service to your destination. Ths would leave space for adequate stopping services between fast ones. Also two quick wins would be to restore 4 tracks through Crossgates and Slaithwaite stations, there is room and this allows overtaking. (I know Slaithwaite used to be 4 track as did all the section west of Hudderfield to the Standegde tunnel, I am only talking about station loops)

 

[nw1]

TPE arguably still isn't operating long trains - 5-car isn't long. There does need to be a programme of 200m platform extensions to prepare for NPR and run proper length trains.

True, though do the 'main' stations not already have platforms long enough to accommodate longer trains anyway?

In the old days (before my time using this line, first used it in 1997 when it was run with 158s) I know they ran loco-hauled trains which were quite long I think, and I do recall Huddersfield (the main intermediate station) having long platforms.

Outside the Manchester-Leeds core we're talking about genuine IC stations such as York, Hull, Newcastle and so on which would also have no problem with train length.

So even today, presumably, they could run a less-frequent but longer service Manchester-Leeds service calling at the major stations with long platforms.

 

[trebor79]

To be fair, many of the lines where rail replacement bus services were introduced and later withdrawn, weren't carrying enough passengers for a replacement service to be economic, even if all the passengers had been catered for by the bus service (which often they weren't). Although there were initially payments to bus companies by BR to keep these services running, these were swept away by the 1968 Transport Act, and the bus companies soon assimilated such services into their network or ceased running them completely.

It was much, much cheaper to run the buses than the trains, but there was no ongoing funding mechanism. As you point out, it didn't have to happen this way, but I expect that the tacit policy was to let such services wither and die, often without much public complaint I would add. It is easy to forget/never realise that many of these trains carried very few passengers indeed.

I've often wondered why the departure boards at Peterborough show buses to Kings Lynn and East Dereham. I assume these were bus services introduced when the M&GNJR network was closed. How have these bus links survived for so long as part of the "railway" timetable?

 

[yorksrob]

True, though do the 'main' stations not already have platforms long enough to accommodate longer trains anyway?

In the old days (before my time using this line, first used it in 1997 when it was run with 158s) I know they ran loco-hauled trains which were quite long I think, and I do recall Huddersfield (the main intermediate station) having long platforms.

Outside the Manchester-Leeds core we're talking about genuine IC stations such as York, Hull, Newcastle and so on which would also have no problem with train length.

So even today, presumably, they could run a less-frequent but longer service Manchester-Leeds service calling at the major stations with long platforms.

8 carriage rakes of mk2's I believe.

 

[40129]

I totally agree, 4 trains an hour was the service up until 2015 I think. If Leeds - Manchester is a turn up and go service then a 15 min wait is not unreasonable. Run the 'Inter City' Service at the max length that can be accomodated, stopping at Huddersfield, only no 'commuter stops' between York and Manchester. At the Eastern end one each per hour to/from Hull, Scarborough, Middlesborough and Newcastle, at the Western end run every 3rd train to Liverpool, with with the other 2 terminating at Man Airport. This will give all the eastern destinations direct services to both the Airport and Liverpool, if your journey is time bound, one change, if not and you have luggage or or not mobile, then you can pick a through service to your destination. Ths would leave space for adequate stopping services between fast ones. Also two quick wins would be to restore 4 tracks through Crossgates and Slaithwaite stations, there is room and this allows overtaking. (I know Slaithwaite used to be 4 track as did all the section west of Hudderfield to the Standegde tunnel, I am only talking about station loops)

I may be misunderstanding this, but if you had an even 4tph service (i.e. every 15 minutes) and ran every third train through to Liverpool, wouldn't you end up with an irregular pattern from Manchester to/from Liverpool?

I agree that a 15 minute interval Inter City service between Manchester and York with hourly extensions as you suggest would be an excellent idea. However, I would suggest that west of Victoria, the pattern should be 2tph to/from Liverpool Lime Street and 2tph to/from Manchester Airport. This would give both the airport and Liverpool a regular 30 minute interval Inter City service across the Pennines as well as sufficient space for regular interval local stopping services.

 

[mike57]

I may be misunderstanding this, but if you had an even 4tph service (i.e. every 15 minutes) and ran every third train through to Liverpool, wouldn't you end up with an irregular pattern from Manchester to/from Liverpool?

I agree that a 15 minute interval Inter City service between Manchester and York with hourly extensions as you suggest would be an excellent idea. However, I would suggest that west of Victoria, the pattern should be 2tph to/from Liverpool Lime Street and 2tph to/from Manchester Airport. This would give both the airport and Liverpool a regular 30 minute interval Inter City service across the Pennines as well as sufficient space for regular interval local stopping services.

The problem is that I am not sure Livverpool needs 2tph, and there are a lot of passengers from the NE to Manchester Airport, often with luggage, who prefer through services. As a destination beyond Manchester the Airport carries more passengers. Would a train every 45 mins fast from Manchester to Liverpool be a problem? So many people use phone apps to get the next train time now, so is the 'clockface' timetable as important. If keeping to a clockface then probably 3 to the Airport and one to Liverpool. Also although its my local line I could envisage Scarborough becoming a shuttle, connecting with the ex Hull service at Leeds. Both Malton and Seamer cannot handle anything more than 5 carriages, where as I would envisage 8 on Leeds Manchester, so the service would become every 20 mins between Leeds and Manchester. The recent rolling stock aquisitions are all 5 car, and I dont know how practical reforming would be, so probably pie in the sky, even although I think the resulting service would be more robust and cheaper to run (Fewer but longer trains, = less staff costs)

 

[mrd269697]

I have no intention of reading the entire thread. But is it suggesting rural stations are useless? Railways aren’t just designed to be profitable. They are a socially necessary form of transportation. We need more stations, more lines, not less.