Checking the macro by looking at many of the micro

[whole diary]

[grahame]

When we take a look at "what should the future service look like", we need to consider the macro - looking at the overall flows - customer, could-be customer and future customer.  There's no way that any service is going to meet everyone's needs, and the trick is to meet 90% of the needs at 10% of the cost of service that would truely meet absolutely all needs.

However, I've taken to testing the macro proposals / suggestions for the future service against the micro of each individual case I come across of people travelling in and around the corridor, and asking "would the new service, and the elements around it that are planned / proposed / suggested" work.

Case in point - this evening.  A visitor to Melksham arrived after a train journey from Nottingham.  Booked onto the sole train of the day that runs from Swindon and Chippenham to Melksham, she got caught up in (overunning?) engineering works - a Nottingham to Cardiff train that was terminated at Birmingham, and so rather than a Cheltenham / Gloucester change, she ended up being advised to take a train to Temple Meads and change there.  And that would have worked, save for the fact that the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train coming up from Paignton was scheduled to make a 10 minute connection at Chippenham into the Melksham train, but was running 12 late.  On being advised of this over the phone, I took an executive decision to drive up to Chippenham, rather than rely on either (a) The TransWilts also being late or (b) the TransWilts being held.   I'm fully aware that FGW would have had to provide a taxi if the connection missed, there being no other train until 06:30 tomorrow (and indeed the connection, being last of the day, should have been helpd), but I was also aware that we had a single traveller on her own, not fully aware of the system, and with English as a second language.  And I was not prepared to take the risk of a customer arriving, greatly delayed ang agitated, at our place.

What if we had 8 trains per day already? and What if we had the information systems and pocket timetables - Melksham to Bath and Bristol - in place?  I would have been ablt to advise "Get the next train to Trowbridge and change there".  Somewhat paradoxically, the solution this evening isn't in the frequency but in the information systems - I'm really glad we're looking to those too - as this Melksham -> Bath / Bristol is an important flow.

But ... this is one of the 90% (as most cases are when I test them).  Didn't work on current provision. Will work on future provision.


Two more guests arriving in about an hour, who live not too far from Heathrow. They've taken a look at their options and decided to drive.  Couldn't come earlier ... again, 8 a day including a mid evening southbound and you have a complete customer service.  Another two of the 90%

[eightf48544]

Grahame perhaps I should accuse you of plagiarism with your Macro/Micro analysis as it was of my rock throwing exercises in another post. However, I am glad you've picked it up and see that it applies to the Transwilts.

It may be that the "bean counters" but more likely transport planners are beginning to realise the railway is a total system and should be planned as such rather the pre 1922 attitude that has prevailed up until now where every line and station belonged to different companies and had to compete with the station down the road on a different line.

I take a bit of heart from todays electrification announcement for Swansea and the  MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) but that still seems to stop at Sheffield rather than Moorthorpe as mentioned in another post. Plus the tram train plan for Rotherham seems to make the ability electrify North of Sheffield by both routes at 25KV difficult whereas 600DC/25KV Ac trams are perfectly feasable. Go to Kassel.

However I despair at a post on the Heatrow Western Junction thread  that Crossrail is a separate entity at Abbey Wood with no onward passenger connection to Dartford.

It's similar to the stupid situation at Highbury and Islington where you cannot run a through service from the NLL to the ELL because you can't change voltage in a platform in case the wire breaks  when the pan rises. The person that said that should have been confined to Farringdon station and made to wait until the wire breaks.

I know Electrictrain says voltage changes require expensive equipment but we know it works at least with OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") and Third rail we don't have to do what they do at Aachen, 
To quote Wikapedia:

"In 1966, Aachen Hauptbahnhof was electrified. Due to its proximity to Belgium, it was decided to implement the switching point from the Deutsche Bahn's 15 kV AC to the 3000 V DC^▸ (Direct Current) used by the NMBS/SNCB in the station. Tracks 6 to 9 therefore have a switchable catenary and are used for international Thalys, ICE and RegionalExpress services."

How many million times has it worked at Farringdon?

The other thing in the macro field is to save the cost of the Crossrail turnback sidings at Maidenhead and put the money into the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification pot instead of Crossrails.

[John R]

How many million times has it worked at Farringdon?

And at Drayton Park.

[paul7575]

It's similar to the stupid situation at Highbury and Islington where you cannot run a through service from the NLL to the ELL because you can't change voltage in a platform in case the wire breaks  when the pan rises. The person that said that should have been confined to Farringdon station and made to wait until the wire breaks.

The person who said that was quite wrong, as far as I can work out.

The reason there are no through services is that there is no timetable capacity for trains heading east along the NLL to cross over onto the southbound ELL.  The track layout along the NLL is that normal services uses the inner tracks, and the outer tracks are long freight loops. 

Then simply because there are no through services planned they did not extend the OHLE^▸ (Over-Head Line Equipment (electrification via catenary)) into the platform at Farringdon much at all, it stops beyond the normal stopping point, ie not above the trains, and the route is not signalled for normal movements anyway.

It's chicken and egg.  They haven't provided for traction changeover in the platform because it isn't needed, and someone's turned that on its head to say that it isn't there because it can't be done.  Which is clearly not the same thing.

Changeover in the platform is routinely done at a number of other places in the LO system as you must be aware, and also at number of other places that aren't in platforms, whichever is best for the situation.

Paul

[grahame]

I've - err - been checking each individual travel request / requirement as it comes up against future plans for rather a long time, but very much aware that they have to fit into the whole. Not sure that I conciously copied any ideas in that direction; rather felt it was a natural / obvious thing to do, without getting hung up on occasional "doesn't work for him" cases. Sorry if toes have been trodden on ... and clear thanks to whoever inspired the approach.

[grahame]

Further check against future service with our end of week / weekend traffic.

a) The 19:47 departure did NOT work for our delegate - lady travelling on her own, to Nottingham.   Arrival there at 00:18 was too late for last onward bus home.  A train between 16:30 and 18:30 would have worked for her.

b) Arrival today - flight into Heathrow, middle of the day.  Unlikely to be able to make 15:22 off Swindon, and really too long to suggest he waits around if he misses that connection for the next train at 21:08.   A train every 2 hours (17:22, 19:22) between the existing ones would work for him.

c) Contact in town - jury duty in Swindon over coming weeks, and without car available.  The 07:17 to Swindon's fine, but on return (anticipated) mid to late afternoon each day, the 18:44 from Swindon is too late.  With something like a 15:44 and a 17:44 (the 18:44 comes off the Stroud Valley so will be an extra), would work.

[grahame]

And two other checks last night / this morning

a) Arrival from Cambridge.   Two delegates offered fares of 178.00 each return, Cambridge to Melksham (on a train earlier than they really wanted), 75.00 at the time they wanted to Chippenham, or 60.00 a bit later to Chippenham.   They chose to save 200 pounds and get a taxi from Chippenham.  Future service - yes; there will be offpeak trains that won't price people off

a) Departure to Heathrow for mid-afternoon flight.  NOT taking the 07:20 train as it's far too early.   In fact not using train at all. Future service - yes - especially when the Western link to Heathrow is there.  (Traveller expressed a strong preference for train ...)

[grahame]

And another ... customer travelling from Peterborough by train.  Actually bought a ticket to Melksham and timed his journey to be only the only train in the day that's shown to connect.   Got held up for 20 minutes outside Reading and the connection at Swindon missed by a couple of minutes ... we picked him up from Chippenham.

Future service ... just about yes. He would probably have waited for the next train, rather than having to make non-rail arrangements because it was the last train of the day.

[grahame]

Customer from overseas today (Sunday) who doesn't have a car wanting to have a day in London.  Current service - no.   Alternative being used - taxi to Chippenham. Future service - yes.

Lisa and I invited to meet up with her brother (who also lives overseas) when the cruise he's on calls at Portland for the day on Sunday, 2nd September.   Current service - no.  Alternative being used - we'll drive down the night before, spend the day with them, and drive back afterwards. Future service - yes.