Had to look up Lamezia Terme Centrale and then found myself bristling at 'Centrale'. Road, more like.

It's good that going south has knocked just a few degrees off the thermometer. Somerset's a little warmer than where you are at the moment.

Mark

 
Thoughts of Motherwell

I caught the direct train from Bristol to Motherwell once - and could have been an hour plus quicker had I changed at Birmingham.  And I have stood at Motherwll impressed by multiple trains headed for (or via) Glasgow Central taking express routes and various routes around the houses.  I am minded of that today, having departed Reggio de Calabria at 07:57 and arrived at Lamezia Terme Centrale at 12:30 via Siderno and Catanzero Lido when there are other (direct) trains that take between 75 and 90 minutes.  Just that the one I'm on is the only one in the day that goes through to Brindisi, and only one of two in the day that links across from the toe to the heel.

Thoughts of Melksham

Sitting here wating for the single line through the Santomarco tunnel - around 15kms without a loop (not sure if there's an intermediate signal and we can be following.  I do note that to get to the tunnel off the main coast line, there is a triangle and we were able to wait on the triangle, clear of the main line.  And I note from the map that there's a traiangle at the other end of the tunnel too allowing us to head towards Sibari without a reversal.  Map says "Limited service on curve" so perhaps this journey is one for the enthusiast?

We could - really - do with the triangle being restored at Thingley / Lacock and at Bradford Junctions. Mentioned before, but this trip through today has reminded by that such an arrangement re-instated would not only allow a significant time saving when Limpley Stoke bridge has been hit (how many times this month?) and / or when Box tunnel is not available, but ALSO in some circumstances it would allow trains to wait off the main line.

 
* On the future size and character of the UK rail network
* On Intercity and Cross Country provision
* On long distance travel by train

I am writing offline - on a train that left on time and is suppose to take 8 hours and 24 minute across the sole of Italy, but is now a nice, round, hour late and on a diversion. And I have reserved a "window" seat with no window, so catching up on a few thoughts generated from postings (I will add links here tonight when I have better access) over the last few days.

Moderators welcome to quote / link onto the threads - I cannot practically to that from this train. (it's post-and-run mode)

---

On future network size and services based on what the SoS had NOT said!

There are 2,600 stations on the UK rail network.  The quietest half - 1,300 - account for just 3.5% of ticketed journeys - that's just 1 in 28 journeys.  The other 1,300 account for the other 27 out of 28 journeys.  Rail currently receives a very high subsidy, and it also fails to reach the reliability standards that people would wish.  It has been suggested that there might be service reductions to reduce congestion, save the need to invest in more infrastructure, and save money.   

The problem is that those 1,300 quieter stations account for 108 million station uses - not trivial, vital to the economy of their catchments.  And that most of the journeys made will be to or from busier stations, so by reducing or removing their services you would be discarding not 3% but 7% of your business.  Also consider that the savings may be minimal - running a station like Sandplace is much less expensive than running a station like Bristol Temple Meads, and if the smaller stops are removed, the train which is running anyway (unless all the stations on a line fall below the threshold) will simply be carrying a few more unused seats that people are no longer paying for.

The issue is not a new one. Dr Richard Beeching reported on a similar situation 60 years ago and his resulting report set the scene for around 2,500 of the 5,000 stations that were in use to be closed, with minor lines that served only those stations ripped up, and expresses travelling long distances through communities that the no longer served.  Some trimming back did make sense, but it has generally been accepted that the report and results went too far - indeed some lines and stations that were closed in that era have been opened and where an appropriate service has been provided, they have blossomed. 

Whilst times have changed and there might be very good reasons for closure in a handful of cases, that is just a handful. Community Rail did an excellent job for quarter of a century in helping the general communities served make use of their trains, though in my own area they have moved on now to their "four pillars". We should be encouraging the currently smaller stations and services to grow and to feed the network.

My own home station of Melksham is in the quieter segment - it was the 610th least busy station last year. The neighbouring town of Bradford-on-Avon, half the size, ranked as the 1752nd least busy - it's in the top 1000.  The town of Devizes - intermediate in size between Melksham and Bradford-on-Avon has no station. It had one prior to the "Beeching Axe" but it and the line closed in 1966.  What a perverse situation.   Our area is considered "rural" which means that there are gaps between the towns - the majority of people live "urban" in these towns, and in most ways want and need to travel between them just as they would between the parts of a city.

So -
How should we promote use of the less used stations?
How can we get those stations better used?
Should the success of service boosts such as the Elizabeth line lessen the pecking order and handling for the others?

On the Cross Country discussions

With any public transport - it applies on buses and long distance coaches too - it is all too easy for the statistician and business operators to concentrate on the busy flows, peak and most profitable routes.  You only need one driver whether the train is 2 or 10 carriages long, only one track for it, and only have one set of signals and stations.  And you'll tend to concentrate on the journeys on those trunk routes that pay the most - which very typically is the InterCity routes to and from London.   You'll find the "honeypot" routes are the East Coast main line from Kings Cross, the West Coast main line from Euston, and the line to the West and South Wales from Paddington.

It's no co-incidence, is it, that these honeypot lines are all attracting Open Access operators on which the shareholder - based companies hope to make a profit by providing fill-in services.  Typically long distance, big flows, and at times that the trains will fill rather than at the times the people actually need them.  The theory is that Open Access should not abstract too much traffic from the [franchised/contracted/public-sector] operation, but in practise they will often compete.  We have, as we move from operations franchised to commercial companies to nationalised operation a whole load of senior people at companies like First, Arriva and Stagecoach who have train experience they want to continue to apply, and perhaps that's why you see interest in providing services like Carmarthen, Wrexham, Blackpool, Teeside, Bradford and Hull to London. 

The view taken as we change from franchises which are based on a good network of services to a nationalised system of operators under which subsidy cost and reliability to timetable are trumpeted is going to be interesting.  Will the HMG operator be inclined to cut services to cost save and make the remaining services less prone to congestion delays? And will that give the open access operators an opportunity - indeed are they already working towards that.  Whilst in some ways the two operations compete, they could and should be able to work together, but as far as I'm concerned the jury's out on this.  There is an opportunity to work together for a common good, but also an opportunity to screw things up royally.

Good example - when Virgin and Arriva trains were the operators of the North Wales line to Holyhead, trains were pretty much every hour - combed into a common timetable and with tickets for the most part the same / accepted on both

Bad example - when First and Faresaver buses both operated from Chippenham to Trowbridge, two buses an hour within a minute or two of each other.  Tickets were not interchangeable so if you bought a return you had to come back on the right bus. And in the peak times / evenings the operations differed substansively.

Are we going to see our nationalised operator cutting out (or trying to cut out) services and stations that require the most subsidy?  Or where they are persuaded that an open access operator may pick up the slack / invest in extra services needed while that nationalised operator provides either a "parliamentary" service of just enough trains to keep the line or station open. On the other hand, are we going to see the nationalised operator guided by what is socially necessary and guided by the local councils, members of parliament, and public?  And if it's the local influence, does this give real hope for regional provision rather than long distance London-bound service?   Does it become something of a postcode lottery?

On long distance travel by train

Many "longer distance trains that do not serve London" were bunched into an "others" franchise 30 years ago, called "Cross Country".  Virgin made a good attempt to make a go of this and indeed their "Operation Princess" brought some really customer-thoughtful services.  These routes had (and perhaps will always have) reliability issues with an issue - perhaps a lorry hitting a bridge near Arbroath delaying a train also used by local passengers later in the journey to get home after work from Exeter to Totnes.  They were also less profitable routes - not the cash cows of London to Manchester, and as a separate franchise this one was noticeable amongst the English ones of needing more financial help.  Loco and coach trains, then HSTs (7 or 8 cars) towards the end of their life were replaced by 4 and 5 car trains, occasionally coupled into pairs.

Then Virgin lost the franchise to lower subsidy cost and lesser provision bid from Arriva. 

There is a very real train capacity / "how long should it be" on long distance service in the Cross Country franchise. These trains convey far more passengers over shorter distances than long ones.  As an example, take the 06:20 Plymouth to Edinburgh.   It will start quiet ... but then pick up loads of passengers at 07:46 at Taunton and be full and standing into Bristol at 08:33. Moderately busy thereafter - but almost certainly seats for all midweek from - for example - York at 12:36 to Newcastle at 13:40.  And with fixed formation units, it's operationally expensive to carry fresh air around. And operationally impractical in the UK these days to add extra carriages from (say) Exeter to Birmingham.  There are other trains from Taunton to Bristol at 07:11 and 08:19 but they take 66 and 62 minutes and passengers prefer the 07:46 which takes just 47 minutes.

I offer you no magic wand - just highlighting the issues and compromised that need to be reached. When considering  what isn the "best" service to provide, the question is "best for whom".  For the taxpayer?  For the operator?  For the short distance daily user?  For the longer distance less frequent user?  For the economies of the areas being served?  For potential users who at present are put off by the cost/complexity of fares, or previous or shared experiences of overcrowded and perhaps delayed trains that seem to dawdle via many intermediate calls.  Far better for the environment to take the train from Bristol to Edinburgh, far better with luggage, far better city centre to city centre, far better with an hourly service.

As an aside, these Cross Country issues are not unique to the UK.  I am writing from on board the 07:57 Reggio de Calabria to Lecce service, travelling to Brindisi.  It's a 4 carriage multiple unit - left on time, due at 15:51.  We are now at Catanzano Lido, due to leave at 10:52 but it's now 11:21.  We were delayed earlier waiting to pass another train that was out of path on the single line, then further delayed here due to a "technical issue", and we have just been told we are now waiting for the next single line.  The train is *not* crowded.  Goodness knows what the flow on and off will be at the 19 stations along the way, how much time we'll make up, what time we will arrive into Brindisi.

There is a coffee machine in coach 2 - but "Coffee Longe" here has me longing for a really much longer coffee. It's more like an espresso with a few drips of water added, looking pathetic in the bottom of a little plastic cup. Cold drink machine too, but no food. Glad I brought some with.  Important announcements are in Italian and then English; others (and I believe there may be a trolley on a later part of the journey) are just in Italian.

Back to Cross Country and open access and service provision.  There might be a passenger and environmental case for a long distance, limited stop, train from (say) Plymouth, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Taunton and Bristol to ... Crewe, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Sunderland, and Newcastle.  And there might well be a similar case for a Southampton (and Winchester and Basingstoke and Oxford) service ... to Crewe, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle and Edinburgh.

We have just left Catanzano Lido - 11:45 (54 minutes late!) and following a diversion back and forth across the foot of Italy because the direct line along the sole close is closed for engineering until the end of this month.  And we have just passed through Catanzano 'itself' with a narrow gauge connection, a station in the process of being rebuilt, and few passengers to seen around.  In many parts I get the feeling of their being more staff than passengers but that might to some extent be because I'm choosing truly off-peak (I don't know when the peak might be!)