Trains no longer fly - from the London Times web site

[ndbprr]

In the age of steam, express trains averaged over 80mph... today they're lucky if they beat 60
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent



MANY train journeys on Britain’s busiest routes are much slower than they were under British Rail and some even take longer than in the age of steam. The high-speed inter-city routes are slower now than in the 1980s, according to an analysis of train timetables.
Nationalised BR tempted people on to trains by advertising reductions in journey time, but the privatised companies have switched the focus to reliability rather than speed and several have added extra minutes to the timetable to avoid penalties for delays.



Journeys on the Great Western Main Line now take up to 20 minutes longer than in 1980, using the same trains. The fastest journey from London to Edinburgh took just under four hours in the 1990s but now takes ten minutes longer. On some regional routes, journeys were faster when Queen Victoria was on the throne.

The occasional steam train was faster than the equivalent service today, usually because stretches of line were closed by Richard Beeching in the 1960s, necessitating longer routes today, or because the Victorians prized their express services and therefore made fewer stops en route. According to Bradshaw’s Threepenny Railway Guide from 1900, three express trains an hour linked Liverpool and Manchester, taking just 40 minutes. A century later, it takes seven minutes longer. It took 35 minutes to travel from Portsmouth to Southampton in 1898, compared with 46 minutes today. In the 1930s, steam expresses regularly averaged more than 80mph.

More surprising is the slowdown since the 1970s, when trains were often faster with the same stopping patterns and using the same diesel or electric engines. In the 1970s, BR branded its new high-speed train the Intercity 125 to underline its top speed of 125mph. But the average speed has steadily declined and is now only 61mph between London and Norwich. The slowdown is partly explained by additional stops to improve frequency at stations along the route. Barry Doe, a timetable consultant, said: “It is true that BR used to focus on a proper express service. But even the extra stops now do not fully explain why many journeys take quarter of an hour longer. Some journeys are longer even with the same stopping patterns.”

South West Trains, the biggest company, reported a 14 per cent improvement in punctuality, due almost entirely to the introduction of a new timetable in December. A few minutes have been added to many journeys, allowing the company to incur delays and still arrive on time. Passengers often find that trains are held at stations because they have arrived early.

SWT said some of the extra minutes were needed because sliding doors take longer to use than the slam doors. Many trains have also been lengthened to cope with increased demand, and the extra weight has reduced acceleration. The original Great Western Intercity 125s had seven coaches but now have eight. The network also carries 2,500 more trains a day compared with 1995, making it more difficult to accommodate expresses.

A spokesman for GNER, which operates between London and Edinburgh, said: “People are more interested in their train arriving at the published time rather than shaving a few minutes off the journey.”

But the Rail Passengers’ Council said speed was crucial in the battle against airlines. There are 46 flights a day from London to Manchester and 70 to Edinburgh. Anthony Smith, the council’s national director, said: “Passengers are baffled why, despite new trains and advanced signalling, their journey takes longer than it used to 20 or even 50 years ago.”

Howard Johnston, of Rail magazine, said even the West Coast Main Line, the only route to be upgraded for faster trains, was slower than promised. “We used to have trains with romantic names like the Flying Scotsman or the Cheltenham Flyer, but nowadays trains no longer fly.”

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is mainly to do with infrastructure - the rail system was effectively drip-fed just enough to keep it alive during the Thatcher years (the government of that era's dislike of public transport is well known!) with the result that now there's a need to repair the ravages of that era. The fact that we've not managed to improve upon the 1970's-vintage HST design (which is now more reliable and comfortable than the units intended to replace it) is shocking. I'd say the HST is doing sterling work considering it was intended as a short-term solution before the planned APT was introduced (in fact, the APT program was cut despite being very promising, and millions of pounds worth of brand-new stock was scrapped - see www.apt-e.org for more details). To my mind it went wrong at this point - there wasn't the political willpower to keep the UK a front-runner in rail technology.

[Anonymous]

In the mid-1930s, the newly electrified Pennsylvania RR's GG-1's were designed to carry passenger trains to cruise at 80 mph and peak at 100 mph. I believe the better trains like The Afternoon Congressional and The Clocker did the two hundred twenty-some miles in about three hours.

Thirty years later, in the mid-sixties, the Pennsy tested its new Metroliner, which was to have speeds of 100 mph sustained, 125 tops. Later that was changed to 90-95 mph sustained, 110 tops. In reality, travel time could only be gotten down to the neighborhood of 2.5 hours by instituting a so-called "express" service, which merely meant that the train stopped only in Philly and Newark (no suburban D.C. stations then), and cruised on through the passenger stations at Baltimore, Wilmington and son on on slow orders. It saved 20 minutes or so, and royally annoyed the citizens of Baltimore, Wilmington, etc. -- That part reminds me of how the trains of BR's descendents add ten minutes or so to their schedule by providing extra service in the form of providing extra stops.

In our case, the Metroliner Express was both elitist and lost passengers. Was Metroliner speed by the mid-1970s that much worse than the GG-1 hauled heavysides of the Great Depression era?

Ten minutes saved? Hah! The Accela can do better than that. Best train in the world, when it's in service every now and then, and the roadbed was a fright.

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

I think the problem is mainly to do with infrastructure - the rail system was effectively drip-fed just enough to keep it alive during the Thatcher years (the government of that era's dislike of public transport is well known!) with the result that now there's a need to repair the ravages of that era. The fact that we've not managed to improve upon the 1970's-vintage HST design (which is now more reliable and comfortable than the units intended to replace it) is shocking. I'd say the HST is doing sterling work considering it was intended as a short-term solution before the planned APT was introduced (in fact, the APT program was cut despite being very promising, and millions of pounds worth of brand-new stock was scrapped - see www.apt-e.org for more details). To my mind it went wrong at this point - there wasn't the political willpower to keep the UK a front-runner in rail technology.

If only Captain Deltic (aka Roger Ford of Modern Railways) were a regular contributor to these Fora, I'm sure he could give you the true picture of which UK Political Party has the best record of authorising railway investment as opposed to being in power at commissioning.

If my 57 year old memory is correct, the only major investment authorised by the Labour Party was the Weaver Junction to Lanark Junction, Electrification project (thus completing the Euston-Glasgow line).

I'm no Conservative supporter (too many forebears were thrown out of work under their policies) but the Heath and Thatcher years did see quite a bit of major investment. In particular I'm thinking of the virtual rebuild of the Great Western Mainline in time for the HST Service, Bournemouth - Weymouth Electrification. and most of all the East Coast and East and West Anglia Electrifcation projects.

What Mrs. Thatcher was fundamentally opposed to was waste in Public Investments, and each of the schemes I listed saw the project sorted on time and within budget and delivering massive benefits to customers and operators alike. In passing, let's not forget that she also OK'd the Channel; Tunnel, but let's not talk about "on budget" in that case!

Labour have hardly ever been sold on railway investment, after all one of their biggest backers is the Transport & General Workers Union, the road haulage and 'bus industry trade union, and while Her Majesty's Treasury officials have always been bean counters, they have been most assiduous when Labour has been in power. If you were my age, you'd know about the ridiculously inadequate approvals BR were given when it asked for further tranches of HSTs for the West of England and Midland Line timetable enhancements.

The one thing that the Tories got absolutely wrong was the obsession over performance management. Their punctuality drive was all very well, but I haven't yet met a railwayman/woman who deliberately arranged things to delay trains. That has never been in anyone's interest, and indeed, most delays are caused by matters outside the ambit of the "railway side", rather passengers running for trains at the last minute, underline bridge bashing incidents, level crossing idiots (we have them, too), suicides, etc.

In the allegedly bad old days, were you to miss your last connecting service of the day, BR would always rustle up a Taxi to get you home. These days, timetables have been deliberately padded out to save penalties for late arrivals, so no hope for a few "Hot" expresses at peak travelling times. One of the most bizarre examples of this was in last year's timing of the Saturday Paddington - Pembroke Dock through train. As would be expected, a train delivering summer holiday makers to our West Wales resorts is usually behind time towards the end of its journey, and the respone was to time the last 2 miles from Pembroke Twon station to Pembroke Dock station at 45 (or was it 54 ?) minutes, hence guaranteeing an on time or early arrival !!!!! Sic transit gloria !

As I said, shame that Captain Deltic isn't around to set BR's record straight.

Regards,

[Anonymous]

I think we actually agree on this one - I wasn't criticising BR, more the way in which they were funded. I'm also no fan of Labour or the Conservatives, neither has a great record on these things. If I'm wrong on some details, then I stand corrected. I'm only 22 so have limited knowledge of the era beyond what I have read of HST and APT development and history.