3 ms·
18 per hour, that's one train every 3 minutes or so? Doesn't that seem overly excessive? Every 10 mins is probably more than enough, just make trains slightly l
by moffkalast 2y ago
18 per hour, that's one train every 3 minutes or so? Doesn't that seem overly excessive? Every 10 mins is probably more than enough, just make trains slightly longer to accommodate capacity and the logistics would be easier.
I was looking at London-Plymouth trains a few months back and the timetable was like once every 2 hours and the last one was at around 5 PM. I think going to maybe once an hour and more than like 3 trains per day would be a decent first improvement before trying something this ludicrous lol. Perfect is the enemy of good.
- Aloisius 2y agoSeems like it'd need to be more than slightly longer to accommodate capacity with a two-thirds reduction in train frequency.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago3 minutes frequency vs 10 minute frequency is the difference of potentially 6 minutes of variance and 20 minutes of variance in 2-way commute time.
- lmm 2y ago> 18 per hour, that's one train every 3 minutes or so? Doesn't that seem overly excessive? No, that sounds pretty normal. You've built the train line and the stations which is the expensive part, it would be a waste not to use it to full capacity. > Every 10 mins is probably more than enough, just make trains slightly longer to accommodate capacity It really isn't. You'd need to operate, what, 40-coach trains to match capacity, which would mean massive amounts of station rebuilding. Think of how much you'd have to demolish to extend Euston to accommodate that. > I was looking at London-Plymouth trains a few months back and the timetable was like once every 2 hours and the last one was at around 5 PM. I think going to maybe once an hour and more than like 3 trains per day would be a decent first improvement before trying something this ludicrous lol. Perfect is the enemy of good. Plymouth's urban population is literally 1/10th that of Birmingham, and travel need scales superlinearly.
- verzali 2y agoThe connection from London to Exeter is better. From Plymouth to Exeter the line runs right along the coast and they don't seem to be able to improve the capacity or speed. The HS2 money would probably be better spent fixing bottlenecks like that to improve the overall capacity, not just to put so many trains between London and Birmingham.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago> I was looking at London-Plymouth trains a few months back and the timetable was like once every 2 hours and the last one was at around 5 PM. Not quite sure which timetable says that; the GWR timetable K1 says there are at least hourly trains down to Plymouth starting at 8AM from London Paddington on the Great Western Main Line; the last train is usually at 18:03 and there are occasional night trains too. In addition, you can travel on the West of England line from London Waterloo and change at Exeter onto one of the Plymouth-bound trains coming from Leeds or Edinburgh; it won't be as comfortable* but it gives you more options. Timetable K1: https://www.gwr.com/-/media/gwr-sc-website/files/plan-journey/timetables/2024/Train-times-2-June-to-14-December/K1-train-times-2-June-to-14-December-2024.pdf https://www.gwr.com/-/media/gwr-sc-website/files/plan-journe... * Not everyone will agree with me here but I find the class 800s on the Great Western infinitely preferable to the tatty old Super Voyager sets - the Sprinters are nice though!