From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns
like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is
no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6 per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why?
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the national interest?
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet >> this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train
operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in >> the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure >> and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main >> line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the >> Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by
unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London >> and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns
like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is >> no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains >> which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares,
better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains
running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6 >> per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the
timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers >> who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated
rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable >> included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains >> no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why?
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means >> taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion >> worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense
when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using >> all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the
national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs
end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days.
But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used, because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day,
there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days.
But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used,
because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
The problem, which is currently a hot topic in the way GBR is being set up, is to get that flow on rail at all there needs to be some kind of long term guarantee that capacity will be available for it. The business needs to build railfreight handling facilities, which is only economic if they can be assured that they'll get 5/10/whatever years worth of paths. That conflicts with GBR's intention to control allocation of paths.
Similarly, they don't want to be told 'the railway is full today', because they may not have a backup method to get their freight where it needs to be
- they don't have a fleet of lorries on standby, and to move one trainload
of freight is a lot of lorries. If paths for their freight are unreliable, their business can't wait - they would either not invest in railfreight at all, or perhaps move their operation to a country where their logistics are reliable.
Because they may not know whether an allocated path is going to be used
until short notice, it's hard to see how a passenger operator might fill it. It's not like there is spare stock and crew hanging around ready to jump in, and a freight path between say Doncaster and Darlington is not enough to
run another train between London and Edinburgh.
Theo
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet
this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train
operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in >>> the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure >>> and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there >>> is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main >>> line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the >>> Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by
unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London >>> and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns
like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is >>> no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains >>> which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares,
better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains >>> running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6 >>> per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number >>> of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the
timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers >>> who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated
rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable >>> included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains >>> no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why?
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means >>> taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion
worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense >>> when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using
all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the
national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs
end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable
slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days.
But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used, because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Beyond that, there are deliberate gaps for resilience. They help the timetable recover from delayed trains, so theyrCOre needed.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for >>>> no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet
this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train >>>> operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in >>>> the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure
and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there >>>> is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main
line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the
Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by >>>> unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London >>>> and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns >>>> like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is >>>> no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains
which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, >>>> better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains >>>> running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6
per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number >>>> of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the >>>> timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers
who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated >>>> rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable
included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains
no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why? >>>>
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means >>>> taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion
worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense >>>> when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using
all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the >>>> national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs
end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable
slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day,
there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days.
But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used,
because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Beyond that, there are deliberate gaps for resilience. They help the
timetable recover from delayed trains, so theyrCOre needed.
Yes, this is the same thinking that insists that hospital beds all need to
be used all the time, and then tries to reduce waiting times without providing any more resources.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>>
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for >>>>> no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet
this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train >>>>> operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in
the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure
and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there >>>>> is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main
line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the
Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by >>>>> unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London
and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns >>>>> like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is
no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains
which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, >>>>> better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains >>>>> running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6
per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number >>>>> of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the >>>>> timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers
who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated >>>>> rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable
included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains
no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why? >>>>>
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means
taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion
worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense >>>>> when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using
all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the >>>>> national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs >>>> end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable >>>> slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, >>> there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days. >>> But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used,
because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Beyond that, there are deliberate gaps for resilience. They help the
timetable recover from delayed trains, so theyrCOre needed.
Yes, this is the same thinking that insists that hospital beds all need to >> be used all the time, and then tries to reduce waiting times without
providing any more resources.
ThererCOs a new ECML timetable in operation. It took years to devise, attempting to balance the conflicting demands of LNER, the regional
operators along the line, open access and freight. There are new paths created, but NR warned that thererCOs no longer enough resilience, and its modelling predicted worse timekeeping. And, sure enough, thatrCOs exactly whatrCOs happened.
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan.ENDQUOTE?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>>>
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for >>>>>> no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet
this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train >>>>>> operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in
the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure
and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main
line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the
Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by >>>>>> unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London
and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns >>>>>> like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is
no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the >>>>>> pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains
which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, >>>>>> better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains >>>>>> running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6
per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the >>>>>> timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the >>>>>> timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers
who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated >>>>>> rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable
included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains
no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why? >>>>>>
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means
taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion
worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense
when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using
all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the >>>>>> national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs >>>>> end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable >>>>> slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, >>>> there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days. >>>> But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used, >>>> because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Beyond that, there are deliberate gaps for resilience. They help the
timetable recover from delayed trains, so theyrCOre needed.
Yes, this is the same thinking that insists that hospital beds all need to >>> be used all the time, and then tries to reduce waiting times without
providing any more resources.
ThererCOs a new ECML timetable in operation. It took years to devise,
attempting to balance the conflicting demands of LNER, the regional
operators along the line, open access and freight. There are new paths
created, but NR warned that thererCOs no longer enough resilience, and its >> modelling predicted worse timekeeping. And, sure enough, thatrCOs exactly
whatrCOs happened.
IrCOve not looked for the stats, but thatrCOs not at all surprising. There must
be, or there ought to be, a branch of mathematics that deals with this kind of timetabling problem, analogous to queuing theory in computer science.
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan.ENDQUOTE?
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a subset of "customers with bookings".
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. >> ENDQUOTE?
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a subset of
"customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week (but not >which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr Smith who >cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7. A restaurant would typically >get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates. For example, >there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which depends >on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather across the >ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody else wants
to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14. Even if they chop that >path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable >because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places, which may not >be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is the least >worst option.
On 14 May 2026 15:11:32 +0100 (BST), Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for >>>> no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. >>> ENDQUOTE?
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a subset of
"customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week (but not
which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr Smith who
cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7. A restaurant would typically >> get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates. For example, >> there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which depends >> on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather across the
ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody else wants >> to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14. Even if they chop that >> path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable
because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places, which may not >> be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is the least >> worst option.
And, in practice, an unused booked freight path may well get used by a late-running passenger train or even allow
another freight train to run earlier than expected.
On 14/05/2026 15:53, Recliner wrote:
On 14 May 2026 15:11:32 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
-a From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>>QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved >>>>> for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. >>>> ENDQUOTE?
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now must >>>> be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a subset of >>>> "customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week (but
not
which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr Smith who >>> cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7.-a A restaurant would
typically
get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates.-a For
example,
there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which
depends
on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather across the >>> ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody else
wants
to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14.-a Even if they
chop that
path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable
because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places, which
may not
be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is
the least
worst option.
And, in practice, an unused booked freight path may well get used by a
late-running passenger train or even allow
another freight train to run earlier than expected.
Basically it is just another Times rail-bashing exercise.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suppose itrCOs a bit like GPs moaning about missed appointments. Looks bad on the spreadsheet but I suspect that in reality they are glad of the odd vacant slot so they can catch up.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, >>> there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days. >>> But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used,
because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
The problem, which is currently a hot topic in the way GBR is being set up, >> is to get that flow on rail at all there needs to be some kind of long term >> guarantee that capacity will be available for it. The business needs to
build railfreight handling facilities, which is only economic if they can be >> assured that they'll get 5/10/whatever years worth of paths. That conflicts >> with GBR's intention to control allocation of paths.
Similarly, they don't want to be told 'the railway is full today', because >> they may not have a backup method to get their freight where it needs to be >> - they don't have a fleet of lorries on standby, and to move one trainload >> of freight is a lot of lorries. If paths for their freight are unreliable, >> their business can't wait - they would either not invest in railfreight at >> all, or perhaps move their operation to a country where their logistics are >> reliable.
Because they may not know whether an allocated path is going to be used
until short notice, it's hard to see how a passenger operator might fill it. >> It's not like there is spare stock and crew hanging around ready to jump in, >> and a freight path between say Doncaster and Darlington is not enough to
run another train between London and Edinburgh.
Theo
On 14/05/2026 16:19, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/05/2026 15:53, Recliner wrote:
On 14 May 2026 15:11:32 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
-a From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes >>>>>> out.QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tablesENDQUOTE?
reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business >>>>>> plan.
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now
must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a
subset of
"customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week
(but not
which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr Smith
who
cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7.-a A restaurant would
typically
get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates.-a For
example,
there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which
depends
on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather across
the
ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody else
wants
to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14.-a Even if they
chop that
path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable >>>> because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places, which
may not
be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is
the least
worst option.
And, in practice, an unused booked freight path may well get used by
a late-running passenger train or even allow
another freight train to run earlier than expected.
Basically it is just another Times rail-bashing exercise.
Similar reasoning to Marchwood?? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns
like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is
no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6 per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why?
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the national interest?
On 14/05/2026 16:44, ColinR wrote:
On 14/05/2026 16:19, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/05/2026 15:53, Recliner wrote:
On 14 May 2026 15:11:32 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
-a From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes >>>>>>> out.QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tablesENDQUOTE?
reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business >>>>>>> plan.
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"! >>>>>>
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now >>>>>> must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a
subset of
"customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week
(but not
which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr
Smith who
cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7.-a A restaurant would
typically
get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates.-a For >>>>> example,
there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which >>>>> depends
on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather
across the
ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody
else wants
to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14.-a Even if they
chop that
path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable >>>>> because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places,
which may not
be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is
the least
worst option.
And, in practice, an unused booked freight path may well get used by
a late-running passenger train or even allow
another freight train to run earlier than expected.
Basically it is just another Times rail-bashing exercise.
Similar reasoning to Marchwood??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
The lines through Southampton are very busy, being constrained by the twin-track tunnel immediately east of Central station. There are the mainline srrvices to Bournemouth anf Weymouth, along with Coastway
services, Salisbury and Bristol and XC. In addition there is heavt
container traffic to and from the docks. I think the best that could be managed would be a shuttle to Marchwood from the little used bay
platform at Central. Not sure that could be financially viable.
On 2026-05-14 4:39 a.m., Tweed wrote:[about unused freight paths]
I suppose itrCOs a bit like GPs moaning about missed appointments. Looks bad >> on the spreadsheet but I suspect that in reality they are glad of the odd
vacant slot so they can catch up.
In this neck of the forest, my dentist and GP (plus a couple of
occasional specialists) charge a penalty for a no-show.-a Appointments
have to be cancelled by a certain timeline (most are 24 hours) to avoid that... the dentist dings $200.-a Our medical appointments (not dental though) have no user-fee per visit so the penalty comes as a surprise to patients.
On 14/05/2026 16:44, ColinR wrote:
Similar reasoning to Marchwood??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
The lines through Southampton are very busy, being constrained by the twin-track tunnel immediately east of Central station. There are the mainline srrvices to Bournemouth anf Weymouth, along with Coastway
services, Salisbury and Bristol and XC. In addition there is heavt
container traffic to and from the docks. I think the best that could be managed would be a shuttle to Marchwood from the little used bay
platform at Central. Not sure that could be financially viable.
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out.It is mostly nonsense. Paths booked for freight trains with maximum
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet >> this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train
operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in >> the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure >> and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main >> line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the >> Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by
unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London >> and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns
like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is >> no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains >> which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares,
better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains
running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6 >> per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the
timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers >> who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated
rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable >> included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains >> no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why?
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means >> taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion >> worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense
when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using >> all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the
national interest?
speeds of 75 or 60mph are little use for passenger trains with maximum speeds of 100 mph or over.
dGraeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 16:44, ColinR wrote:
Similar reasoning to Marchwood??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
The lines through Southampton are very busy, being constrained by the
twin-track tunnel immediately east of Central station. There are the
mainline srrvices to Bournemouth anf Weymouth, along with Coastway
services, Salisbury and Bristol and XC. In addition there is heavt
container traffic to and from the docks. I think the best that could be
managed would be a shuttle to Marchwood from the little used bay
platform at Central. Not sure that could be financially viable.
DoesnrCOt such a terminating shuttle take more time to turn around
and then reinsert in between other paths rather than have a short stop at the busy point and then heading for somewhere quieter to return from? One example I have in mind is the service on the Exmouth line mainly runs through to Paignton , despite the reversal at St Davids the time between Exeter Central and Exeter St Thomas is only 10 mins which includes the 3
mins for reversal.
A service from the Marchwood line could stop briefly at Southampton and continue beyond to somewhere like Romsey Via Chandlers Ford or Fareham
on the Coastway Route.
The dwell time at Soton would cause less disruption than crossing over to the Bay which would need to be slotted between west bound trains.
Yes, this is the same thinking that insists that hospital beds all need to
be used all the time, and then tries to reduce waiting times without providing any more resources.
In this neck of the forest, my dentist and GP (plus a couple of
occasional specialists) charge a penalty for a no-show.-a Appointments
have to be cancelled by a certain timeline (most are 24 hours) to avoid that... the dentist dings $200.-a Our medical appointments (not dental though) have no user-fee per visit so the penalty comes as a surprise to patients.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days. But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used, because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
The problem, which is currently a hot topic in the way GBR is being set up, is to get that flow on rail at all there needs to be some kind of long term guarantee that capacity will be available for it. The business needs to build railfreight handling facilities, which is only economic if they can be assured that they'll get 5/10/whatever years worth of paths. That conflicts with GBR's intention to control allocation of paths.
Similarly, they don't want to be told 'the railway is full today', because they may not have a backup method to get their freight where it needs to be
- they don't have a fleet of lorries on standby, and to move one trainload
of freight is a lot of lorries. If paths for their freight are unreliable, their business can't wait - they would either not invest in railfreight at all, or perhaps move their operation to a country where their logistics are reliable.
Because they may not know whether an allocated path is going to be used
until short notice, it's hard to see how a passenger operator might fill it.
On 14/05/2026 18:09, Nobody wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:39 a.m., Tweed wrote:[about unused freight paths]
I suppose itrCOs a bit like GPs moaning about missed appointments. Looks bad
on the spreadsheet but I suspect that in reality they are glad of the odd >> vacant slot so they can catch up.
In this neck of the forest, my dentist and GP (plus a couple of
occasional specialists) charge a penalty for a no-show.-a Appointments have to be cancelled by a certain timeline (most are 24 hours) to avoid that... the dentist dings $200.-a Our medical appointments (not dental though) have no user-fee per visit so the penalty comes as a surprise to patients.
A double-edged sword. Patients whose ailment has cleared itself up may
waste the doctor's time if they won't or can't pay $200 to stay at home.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>>
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved for >>>> no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan. Yet
this is precisely what happens on BritainrCOs railways: aspirant train >>>> operators are told thererCOs no space on key lines while reserved slots in
the timetable sit empty, unused by trains that never run.
State-owned Network Rail runs and maintains BritainrCOs rail infrastructure
and consequently has enormous influence over train slots. It claims there
is no more space on BritainrCOs most important railway, the west coast main
line (WCML), which carries 75 million passengers a year between London, the
Midlands and Scotland.
This recently led the Office of Rail and Road to reject applications by >>>> unsubsidised operators to run new fast competitive services between London
and the northwest, bringing direct rail connections to cities and towns >>>> like Salford and Rochdale. The reason given: the WCML is full and there is
no space for new services. But is it?
New research shows the railways are not as congested as before the
pandemic. And that the network is holding slots in the timetable for trains
which donrCOt actually run. LetrCOs call them BritainrCOs ghost trains. They are
blocking new high-speed train services which could deliver lower fares, >>>> better trains and more routes, particularly along the WCML.
The scale of the problem is striking. There are hundreds of fewer trains >>>> running compared with 2019, a 4.2 per cent reduction in train miles, or 8.6
per cent on the WCML. Yet the number of planned train miles in the
timetable has increased following network upgrades. This means the number
of services expected to operate each day is well below the total in the >>>> timetable rCo a significant opportunity to run more services for passengers
who want more choice.
These unused slots result from a growing number of services designated >>>> rCLstrategic capacityrCY, usually freight trains. Last summerrCOs timetable
included 413 such slots, consuming 28,853 train miles. Coal and mail trains
no longer run but some of their slots are still in the timetable. Why? >>>>
Not only is it disingenuous to claim that key lines are full, but it means
taxpayers are hardly getting the best value for money following -u24 billion
worth of network enhancements. Holding track capacity back makes no sense
when the challenge to grow the economy is paramount. ShouldnrCOt we be using
all the train capacity we have to run the best possible services in the >>>> national interest?
It's a dilemma. It's tempting to withdraw unused paths, but then TOCs >>> end up running empty trains, as airlines do just to keep their valuable >>> slots.
The unused paths are mainly for freight trains. They have many daily
reserved paths, but the trains donrCOt run every day. So, on any one day, >> there will be a number of unused paths that might be used on other days. >> But perhaps there are indeed some paths that are currently never used,
because those freight flows have been lost to rail, or are seasonal.
Beyond that, there are deliberate gaps for resilience. They help the
timetable recover from delayed trains, so theyrCOre needed.
Yes, this is the same thinking that insists that hospital beds all need to be used all the time, and then tries to reduce waiting times without providing any more resources.
ThererCOs a new ECML timetable in operation. It took years to devise, attempting to balance the conflicting demands of LNER, the regional
operators along the line, open access and freight. There are new paths created, but NR warned that thererCOs no longer enough resilience, and its modelling predicted worse timekeeping. And, sure enough, thatrCOs exactly whatrCOs happened.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 07:49 AM, Tweed wrote:
From The Times. I assume itrCOs not as simple as the author makes out. >>>QUOTE?:
If a restaurant claims to be fully booked but keeps tables reserved forENDQUOTE?
no-shows who never arrive, yourCOd rightly question their business plan.
[ ... ]
Eh? I thought that that was the precise meaning of "fully booked"!
The restaurant hopes that nobody who has booked a table (which now must
be reserved) will be a no-show. After all, the "no-show" is a subset of
"customers with bookings".
The railway knows that a daily path may be only used once a week (but not which day), so that's the equivalent of keeping a table for Mr Smith who cancels at the last minute 6 times out of 7. A restaurant would typically get tired of such behaviour, but this is how freight operates. For example, there may only be traffic from a port when there's a ship in, which depends on shipping timetables which ultimately depend on the weather across the ocean.
They also can't offer the path to somebody else, because nobody else wants
to go from port A to factory B on Tuesday at 06.14. Even if they chop that path up and try to resell bits of it, those sections may not be usable because getting stock to use it needs paths from other places, which may not be available.
It's a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, and one freight path going empty is the least worst option.
On 14/05/2026 23:19, Marland wrote:
dGraeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 16:44, ColinR wrote:
Similar reasoning to Marchwood??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
The lines through Southampton are very busy, being constrained by the
twin-track tunnel immediately east of Central station. There are the
mainline srrvices to Bournemouth anf Weymouth, along with Coastway
services, Salisbury and Bristol and XC. In addition there is heavt
container traffic to and from the docks. I think the best that could be
managed would be a shuttle to Marchwood from the little used bay
platform at Central. Not sure that could be financially viable.
DoesnrCOt such a terminating-a shuttle take more time to turn around
and then reinsert in between other paths rather than have a-a-a short
stop at
the busy point and then heading for somewhere quieter to return from?
One
example I have in mind is the service on the Exmouth-a line mainly runs
through to Paignton , despite the reversal at St Davids the time between
Exeter Central and Exeter St Thomas is only 10 mins which includes the 3
mins for reversal.
A service from the Marchwood-a line could stop briefly at Southampton and
continue beyond to somewhere like Romsey Via-a-a Chandlers Ford-a or Fareham >> on the Coastway Route.
The dwell time at Soton would cause less disruption than crossing
over to
the Bay which would need to be slotted between west bound trains.
You still have the problem with the two track tunnel. Easier to find a
path across to the bay, or even use one of the island platforms. The
latter are used for terminating Coastways services which are generally 4
car trains. The platforms are split A and B ends so no resignalling
required and the approaching 4 track section is all bi-directional.
On 15/05/2026 07:32, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/05/2026 23:19, Marland wrote:
dGraeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 16:44, ColinR wrote:
Similar reasoning to Marchwood??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c202n2zlz85o
The lines through Southampton are very busy, being constrained by the
twin-track tunnel immediately east of Central station. There are the
mainline srrvices to Bournemouth anf Weymouth, along with Coastway
services, Salisbury and Bristol and XC. In addition there is heavt
container traffic to and from the docks. I think the best that could be >>>> managed would be a shuttle to Marchwood from the little used bay
platform at Central. Not sure that could be financially viable.
DoesnrCOt such a terminating-a shuttle take more time to turn around
and then reinsert in between other paths rather than have a-a-a short
stop at
the busy point and then heading for somewhere quieter to return from?
One
example I have in mind is the service on the Exmouth-a line mainly runs
through to Paignton , despite the reversal at St Davids the time between >>> Exeter Central and Exeter St Thomas is only 10 mins which includes the 3 >>> mins for reversal.
A service from the Marchwood-a line could stop briefly at Southampton and >>> continue beyond to somewhere like Romsey Via-a-a Chandlers Ford-a or
Fareham
on the Coastway Route.
The dwell time at Soton would cause less disruption than crossing
over to
the Bay which would need to be slotted between west bound trains.
You still have the problem with the two track tunnel. Easier to find a
path across to the bay, or even use one of the island platforms. The
latter are used for terminating Coastways services which are generally
4 car trains. The platforms are split A and B ends so no resignalling
required and the approaching 4 track section is all bi-directional.
Could some Coastway or other terminating services continue via
Marchwood instead, or do they all use the wrong sort of train?
On 15/05/2026 16:55, Certes wrote:
Could some Coastway or other terminating services continue via
Marchwood instead, or do they all use the wrong sort of train?
Coastway services are electric, 377s, 387s and the like. The only diesel services are the Salisbury and Romsey services which use 159s.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:04:23 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
8 files (13,162K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,525 |