Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 05:15 13 Mar 2025
 
- Disabled people must have a say in rail reforms, MP says
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - Community Rail Awards
19/03/25 - WWRUG AGM
19/03/25 - Forum offline 00:00 - 02:00
21/03/25 - TravelWatch SouthWest

On this day
13th Mar (2004)
Website of the week - Man in seat 61 (link)

Train RunningCancelled
05:10 Oxford to Worcester Shrub Hill
05:47 Exeter St Davids to Cardiff Central
07:04 Bath Spa to Filton Abbey Wood
07:13 Great Malvern to London Paddington
07:27 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
07:44 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
14:03 Westbury to Gloucester
16:10 Gloucester to Castle Cary
18:53 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
21:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Bristol Temple Meads
13/03/25 22:30 London Paddington to Bedwyn
22:35 Castle Cary to Westbury
Short Run
07:00 Worcester Shrub Hill to Didcot Parkway
13/03/25 11:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Foregate Street
13/03/25 13:52 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
16:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Foregate Street
18:52 Castle Cary to Bristol Temple Meads
20:50 Bristol Temple Meads to Castle Cary
21:00 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Shrub Hill
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 13, 2025, 05:19:00 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[147] Night Riviera - merged posts, ongoing discussion
[135] Small rise in crime at Melksham Station
[63] A move to longer trains?
[56] "Mysterious" tunnels at Salisbury Station
[44] FGW announce link with Singapore Airlines
[34] Open top bus service 300 Lands End St Ives
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: A move to longer trains?  (Read 410 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43557



View Profile WWW Email
« on: March 11, 2025, 07:11:18 »

From Scotrail

Quote
ScotRail to introduce longer trains on West Highland Line

From tomorrow (Tuesday, 11 March), ScotRail will operate seven-carriage trains between Glasgow and Crianlarich, and five-carriage trains between Crianlarich and Fort William.

The improvements have been made possible due to the completion of platform extension works by Network Rail, which now allow the train operator to make better use of its Highland Explorer carriages. The use of active travel carriages had previously been restricted on services due to platform length limitations.

The Highland Explorer carriages will be used on the following services:

12:22 Glasgow to Fort William.
17:37 from Fort William to Glasgow (starting in Mallaig).

ScotRail will also begin its summer service strengthening tomorrow, earlier than in previous years. Traditionally starting from the last weekend in March, this year summer strengthening will start on 11 March to accommodate increased demand.

After many years of feeling and seeing trains shrinking in general, it's good see some lengthening.   There have been past cases of growing but what we have seen over recent decades has been shorter, though more frequent trains.

Last week, I was on the Kyle line.  In my youth there were 5 trains a day on the line (3 to Kyle and 2 from Kyle) and I can recall wondering if there was a scrapyard at Kyle.  These days there are 8 trains - 4 each way - but they are just two carriages long as against perhaps 4 to 6 in the past.

Is 2 cars enough? For the trains I was on, in my carriages, yes, it was.  But for other services I'm told by staff it can be hard to find a seat.   The "problem" with longer trains, if you like, is that the extra capacity is needed only for a small proportion of trains even if it affects a larger proportion of passengers.

Making trains longer should be cheaper than running more trains, but while frequency remains below a certain quantum, you'll get far, far more growth and passenger on a 2 x 2 car service than a 1 x 4 car service. 

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1786



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2025, 10:48:33 »

Don't get too excited, Grahame!

In the case of the West Highland line, this is simply one train a day in each direction will now have one of the converted class 153s (24 extra seats, plus plenty of room for bikes, skis etc.) added. I assume that it is just stations beyond Crianlarich that have been extended where necessary, as south of there (if its anything like the service I used a few years ago) some of the trains will be 4x2 car units, dividing or joining 2 sets of 2 at Crianlarich when the Oban and Fort William services part or join, some of the Oban trains being 2 units. If I recall correctly, the class 156 units are about 150 seaters, so a 300 (or 450 until Crianlarich) seat train to or from Glasgow gets a modest number of extra seats on one trip a day.

On the Kyle line, my recollection from a trip in 1981 was that the trains were 4 coach trains, consisting of Mk1 corridor stock. The seconds would therefore have each held potentially 64 passengers, 32 in the brake coach, but presumably there was either a first class coach (48 in an open coach, 36 if corridor) or a composite (56), so the nominal capacity of each train was between 166 and 220), whereas a class 158 is (I think) 138. However, outside crowded peak commuting trains, 4 people sitting across the bench seat of a second class Mk 1 compartment was unusual (and not that pleasant!), so it was actually more like 156 to 168. It looks like the capacity has actually increased, but presumably at the eastern end at peak times (Inverness commuters?) the trains struggle with the demand.

Did that last train to Kyle you mention in the old 3 out, 2 back service pattern simply return empty to Inverness? I do though recall getting up very early for my trip from Kyle to Inverness in 1981, joining the workers from the Applecross oilrig yard on the Kyle ferry to get to the station from our holiday accommodation on Skye, so it seems unlikely that there was not a train stabled overnight for this service.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43557



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2025, 12:21:24 »

It looks like the capacity has actually increased, but presumably at the eastern end at peak times (Inverness commuters?) the trains struggle with the demand.

Ironically not - the struggle is between Kyle of Lochalsh and Dingwall with leisure / tourism traffic, even this early in the year.  Train manager reporting as we returned (I was in front carriage) Duirinish to Plockton that the rear carriage was heaving with a group, and later in the day I came across the same 158 on the Invergordon to Inverness shuttle - its next working - with paper reservation still in place Stromeferry to Inverness.  TM (Train Manager, or possibly Ticket Machine, depending on context) explained that the turn around of the set at Inverness was a tight one and he hadn't had time to remove them.

There are now 13 trains a day inbound from Dingwall to Inverness, three before 9 a.m. and seeing a couple of them come in they had a healthy but not huge number of passengers.    Probably the same outbound - 3 trains in 90 minutes just after 5 p.m. but no personal report from me.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
rogerpatenall
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 335



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 08:25:36 »

My only trip to Kyle was in the early 1980s, I think, and was. both ways, in the Beaver Tail observation car, added to four Mark 1s.
Logged
froome
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 983


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 11:21:23 »

I would argue that there is a much greater need for longer trains on lines like the Kyle line. My reasoning is that on what are essentially 'tourist lines' the demand to have a window seat will be much greater than on a commuter line. It can be frustrating to travel up to somewhere scenic, and find you can't get near a window to get the best view possible.

Many services run long trains to stations with platforms that are not long enough for all doors to open, so I don't see why longer platforms per se are necessary before longer trains are introduced.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43557



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 15:26:16 »

I would argue that there is a much greater need for longer trains on lines like the Kyle line. My reasoning is that on what are essentially 'tourist lines' the demand to have a window seat will be much greater than on a commuter line. It can be frustrating to travel up to somewhere scenic, and find you can't get near a window to get the best view possible.

Many services run long trains to stations with platforms that are not long enough for all doors to open, so I don't see why longer platforms per se are necessary before longer trains are introduced.

Yes, BUT ...

My first argument would be for seats that line up with windows!

And I am very conscious that fares per mile tend to be lower, and fewer trains operating, pushing the economics of these lines into needing far more support per passenger or mile than many other lines.   I also thing of the people travelling and they tend to be paired up, so window seat and one looking over that seat past their partner, may not be all that bad.

I do celebrate that the trains that bring commuter into Inverness in the morning are they used for the day trip trains out, then get back into Inverness to take the commuters home.

Longer trains - yes, with through corridors trains (e.g. 158) single-door stations like Conon Bridge and Beauly work.  Only up to a certain number of passengers using each train though.  Might be fine for a re-opened Holt or Beanacre, but not for a Devizes Gateway
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
Hafren
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 20:50:19 »

Many services run long trains to stations with platforms that are not long enough for all doors to open, so I don't see why longer platforms per se are necessary before longer trains are introduced.

A few things that might be relevant here:

(1) In the West Highland example, they probably don't want the cycle vehicle to be the non-platformed one - a bit awkward if the cyclists need to carry the bike through after being given their dedicated carriage. Not completely different from any train with designated bike spaces, but more notable if there's a whole carriage designed for the purpose and it's a USP on the line.

(2) If there are too many short platforms, or main stations have short platforms, it may reach the point where the majority of people in a carriage are for stations where that car isn't platformed, in which case the operational hassle is increased.

(3) If SDO (Selective Door Opening) isn't available (i.e. local door operation is the only option) the short platforms only really 'work' at minor stations; at least the main stops need to be lengthened to avoid large numbers of people having to fit through one door, and move through the train before arriving, and there's a greater risk of people being caught out.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43557



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 22:39:19 »

How the train service has increased since the 1960s







Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43557



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 22:47:08 »

(1) In the West Highland example, they probably don't want the cycle vehicle to be the non-platformed one - a bit awkward if the cyclists need to carry the bike through after being given their dedicated carriage. Not completely different from any train with designated bike spaces, but more notable if there's a whole carriage designed for the purpose and it's a USP on the line.

(2) If there are too many short platforms, or main stations have short platforms, it may reach the point where the majority of people in a carriage are for stations where that car isn't platformed, in which case the operational hassle is increased.

(3) If SDO (Selective Door Opening) isn't available (i.e. local door operation is the only option) the short platforms only really 'work' at minor stations; at least the main stops need to be lengthened to avoid large numbers of people having to fit through one door, and move through the train before arriving, and there's a greater risk of people being caught out.

Yes - with qualification.

On the Kyle line last week - six outbound request stops and six inbound, but the train only made 3 out of the 12 calls - one for me at Duirinish outbound, and two inbound at Achnashelleach and Achanalt. So IF they had been short, not a capacity problem.

Now actually the two short platforms are NOT request stops, but as it's rear door of front coach, both coaches are fine for people to use.   And a new station would be highly unlikely to be justified if it were to be a request stop.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules via admin@railcustomer.info. Full legal statement (here).

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page