Consultation on "Improving Connectivity"

[whole diary]

[stuving]

"Connectivity" has appeared as a buzz-word in HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) documents, and in the new route studies, meaning something like serving other stations as well when you are discussing a main line. Network Rail have also undertaken a study (like a Network RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy)) into a more concrete proposal they call "improving connectivity". This may be familiar as German-style clockface timetabling (though they identify it as Swiss, since the Swiss have taken it further, and it has been mentioned in this forum as being typical of the Netherlands).

In essence, it means this: when designing services linking between main lines, top priority in given to making them connect with the main line and each other, speed and direct trains are less important. Ideally, all connecting trains turn up simultaneously with the mainline trains. They also show how cross-platform changes can make three-ended routes work better (though I can't see how that would work with four ends).

Most of the study is an exercise in applying these principles to the Anglia Route, and they claim impressive reductions in travel time between almost all station pairs. Less surprisingly, it makes travel between more such station pairs by train a feasible option.

Unfortunately, they do not make any attempt at applying it elsewhere, nor say whether the Anglia Route is unusually suitable for it. So how well would it work for the Western Route?

The consultation is here, and the report itself is here. Responses must be in by 31 January 2015.

(This is supposedly part of the Long Term Planning Process, though I have yet to find a route through the menus that leads to it there or anywhere else.)

[eightf48544]

It certainly seems a good idea to study this but I do wonder how many stations it would be possible to arrange cross platform interchange as in Germany.  Reading maybe when the Viaduct and the Festival line are fully operational. Cross Country to West Country Platorm 3 to 7

i still have my video of an ICE and IC^▸ (Inter City) arriving simultaneously either side of the platform in Mannheim.
No defensive driving in fact the IC overtakes the ICE runnig down the platform.

[grahame]

It certainly seems a good idea to study this but I do wonder how many stations it would be possible to arrange cross platform interchange as in Germany.  Reading maybe ...

Westbury ... especially once we get an extra track along the unused platform  .   

Salisbury ...

[Chris from Nailsea]

Parson Street ... 

[Oberon]

I think it's fair to say this sort of thing already exists at Salisbury

[grahame]

I think it's fair to say this sort of thing already exists at Salisbury

Maybe ... or maybe it needs a bit of tuning there?

I'm an occasional traveller from West Wilts to lots of places including Farnborough (Hants), Basingstoke, and the South Bank in London for which Waterloo is a perfect arrival.

Arrival of the hourly service from Cardiff into Salisbury is at xx:29, which is just after the departure of the xx:21 Exeter to London Express.    Arrival of the hourly express from London is at xx:42, which is just after the departure at xx:40 of the Cardiff train.    We know there's a significant requirement for this flow, since there's a handful of trains from London that detach a Bristol portion at Salisbury.

Where it does work at Salisbury is for passengers arriving from Portsmouth and headed to Exeter and vice versa.

[eightf48544]

To enable cross platform Westbury London and vice versa connections at Salisbury the station would realy need to be two island platforms one Up one Down. Then the Cardiff to Portsmouth and Exeter London and and in the Down could be in the station at the same time.

Which was why I suggested that there are very few junction staions where this can happen

Agreed Parsons Street is an interesting one but like Westbury needs the 4th platform to be reinstated.

Then you could have a connection between Cross Country and or the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)  and the Taunton Bristol stopper. It would mean two stops close together for the fast but but would keep changing passengers out of Temple Meads.  Although the passenger facilities might have to be improved
at Parsons Street.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I was thinking also of the connection with the new passenger services on the reopened branch line to Portishead. 

[Red Squirrel]

Then there's Avonmouth (for Henbury) and Stapleton Rd (for all sorts of places)...

[ellendune]

To enable cross platform Westbury London and vice versa connections at Salisbury the station would realy need to be two island platforms one Up one Down. Then the Cardiff to Portsmouth and Exeter London and and in the Down could be in the station at the same time.

Which was why I suggested that there are very few junction staions where this can happen

Agreed Parsons Street is an interesting one but like Westbury needs the 4th platform to be reinstated.

Then you could have a connection between Cross Country and or the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)  and the Taunton Bristol stopper. It would mean two stops close together for the fast but but would keep changing passengers out of Temple Meads.  Although the passenger facilities might have to be improved
at Parsons Street.

Can't see a huge benefit here - not enough to stop express trains there - even after Portishead reopening.  A short trip into and out of Temple Meads would be more efficient and would give vastly more connecting opportunities.  

[Chris from Nailsea]

You will no doubt note that my suggestion of Parson Street was clearly marked  ...

CfN. 

[bobm]

Interesting twist on cross platform changes is Newton Abbot.  At night, after the last Paignton train has gone, the down trains are usually crossed over to Platform 3 which offers no step access to the car park and taxis.

[grahame]

To enable cross platform Westbury London and vice versa connections at Salisbury the station would realy need to be two island platforms one Up one Down. Then the Cardiff to Portsmouth and Exeter London and and in the Down could be in the station at the same time.

Which was why I suggested that there are very few junction staions where this can happen

Yes, I see what you're saying - but I suspect that in many cases (Salisbury may be an example) that not all the connections are needed at the same.

Let's take a look:

Exchange from Waterloo to Cardiff AND from Portsmouth to Exeter (and vice versa) - useful
Exchange from Waterloo to Portsmouth AND from Cardiff to Exeter (and vice versa) - limited use
Exchange from any line back into a train returning the same way - pointless

Let me qualify "limited use".

Passengers coming up from Portsmouth and Southampton to Basingstoke and London will go via Wincehester
Passengers from Westbury and north thereof, to Yeovil, Exeter and Westwards will go via Castle Cary
There would be some double-back flows with the extra connections, but none strikes me a large.
- Romsey to Andover
- Warminster to Axminster
- Grateley to Southampton
- Bath to Honiton
(please let me know if I've missed a big 'un).

[stuving]

I think everyone is rather missing the point. The proposition is that you could scrap the current timetable completely, adopt 'connectivity' in this sense as top priority, and then design a route network and timetable on that basis from scratch. The approach they describe would produce a pattern of 1 and 2 tph everywhere, with good connections (ideally all cross-platform). That ought to give better connectivity, obviously, but what would be the penalties?

The study claims that you can then overlay extra services: fast trains on the main lines, some of which also interconnect with slower ones; extra stopping trains for 4 tph 'metro' service, and peak commuter trains too. They imply that no capacity is lost, but that sound unikely (I imagine a lot of current timetablers will be sceptics). There will have to be some timetable padding, which we know happens in Switzerland and Germany. What about where the current timetable has to be carefully tweaked to mix fast and stopping trains on the same line can that capacity be maintained?

They do say that extra infrastructure is needed, most obviously those island platforms to change trains across, and line speed improvements where the clockface timings are just missed. However, they do say that some works can be omitted, such as doubling single track near stations (all trains arrive in a 'flight' and then leave likewise): they give the example of Trowse Swing Bridge at Norwich.

At Ely North, which is their main worked example, they want a new station, to make it easier for this to be a key interchange. While it's not made explicit, they would move the junction itself northwards, thus closing two level crossings. But this time they also ask for grade separation of the Peterborough line at this junction, which is not in the Anglia Route Study. I presume this is mainly for freight, but surely an avoiding line (maybe using the West Curve) and a choice of crossovers north or south of Ely North ought to be enough.

[eightf48544]

Very interesting stuving.

If they are really looking at a fairly radical change to service patterns, plus new stations and extra platforms to improve connectivity then it rather makes a nonsense of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) with it's 4 separate terminal stations. I suppose they could bring a train from the North into Curzon Street with a cross platform change into a London train. But that seems to defeat the objectives of HS2 of givng high speed journies to London from the North.

I suppose New Crewe is HS2's answer, I'm not sure Toton or Meadowhall meet the criteria.

New Reading with the flyunder from the Southern and the Viaduct and Festival lnes to the West with most lines bi-directional  could with clever timetabling/platforming give some cross platform interchanges.  Although like Salisbury you'd have to work out what flows to cater for. Heathrow (if West link is opened) and Gatwick from anywhere West. TV Crossrail stations to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Cross Country.