How could unsatisfactory branch shuttles be improved?

[Meerkat]

The best thing to do with the Henley branch would be to stick up tram wire and redouble track it with new stations off Mill Lane behind Tescos with a Park and Ride (as a Henley man/woman, you'll know how difficult parking is and the horrid congestion in general in Henley Town Centre) and on Bath Rd by Carlisles Corner Roundabout on the A4/A321 outside Twyford to serve Piggotts and the north end of Twyford.

With a few trams and light maintenance done in the platforms at Twyford Station (the second platform could easily be reopened), the service frequency could be increased to every 15 mins with minimal impact on operating expense to better connect with services towards Reading and London, the direct London trains aren't coming back as the GWML is rammed.
It would require significant initial investment, though there would be significant new income from Park and Ride passengers (especially during Regatta). The journey time would remain roughly the same, even with new stations as the faster acceleration of the trams would make up the time, plus the speed limit could be raised over the Wargrave Railway Bridge as the trams would be much lighter.

Your P&R- who is it for and for going which way?

 

[tbtc]

PVR??

I could well be in need of correcting but I think that stands for:
Peak Vehicle Requirement

@PG is correct

To expand upon my point, I'm meaning that some operationally independent branches can need stock that is either a bit wasteful

For example, you might need twelve or thirteen units to maintain a service with a Peak Vehicle Requirement of ten - i.e. a maximum of ten trains in service at any one time - so roughly a quarter of trains unused to cover maintenance/ repairs/ repaints/ training etc - but the need for specialist stock on the Stourbridge line means twi class 139s dedicated to it when only one is ever in service - i.e. half of the trains are sat idle because there has to be some spare - you aren't going to naively assume that one unit will be indestructible and always be available for service - and with standard DMU/EMU carriages costing over a million pounds, having a branch that uses trains inefficiently costs a lot of money that has to be paid for somehow

Alternatively you can have a situation like the Marston Vale line (apologies for bringing up this lightly used line, but Forum tradition dictates that it gets mentioned on any thread that's over a hundred posts long), where the DMUs used in pre-230 days were common to LNW but didn't operate any other routes near the Marston Vale stations, so LNW had to arrange long ECS movements back to the West Midlands so that the 150/153 could be cycled in with the rest of the DMU fleet - on top of the reliability problem that a broken window on a unit on the Marston Vale would either see the branch reduced to just half frequency or trying to arrange for a driver and path down the WCML so that a 75mph DMU can come from Tydsley to Bletchley - quite the hassle

Sometimes the branch can become more uneconomical because of changes to the main line - e.g. the Thames Valley branches were able to use a large pool of 165s that Thames Trains/ FGW/ GWR also used on services to London/ Oxford etc. A big fleet can be more efficient in terms of the number of spares that you need to have. But with the electrification of the main GWML, that means fewer 165s based at Reading, which means any unit "spare" at Reading depot is only shared between a handful of diagrams, which pushes up the cost of operating the branches

But then is the alternative that you incorporate the branch line into the main line services, which can mean extending branch line platforms to accommodate trains the length of main line services and then use a lot more carriages as a result ... no easy answers!

 

[Taunton]

I've written before about the half-hourly Ascot to Aldershot shuttle. Used to be a through train from Waterloo, dividing at Ascot for Aldershot and for Reading. There's now a 10-minute connection at Ascot, which if the Waterloo train arrives on time is too much, but the latter quite commonly arrives exactly 10 minutes late if it got stuck behind a stopper back at Richmond. Determination for the shuttle to depart to the second (although this zeal somehow doesn't apply to the arriving main line train) means it being sent off literally as passengers are running across the bridge. Given that almost nobody starts their journey on the shuttle at Ascot, its passengers being pretty much wholly those connecting, and that this is the only rail service from London to significant places like Camberley, it's a shambles.

 

[Ken H]

@PG is correct

To expand upon my point, I'm meaning that some operationally independent branches can need stock that is either a bit wasteful

For example, you might need twelve or thirteen units to maintain a service with a Peak Vehicle Requirement of ten - i.e. a maximum of ten trains in service at any one time - so roughly a quarter of trains unused to cover maintenance/ repairs/ repaints/ training etc - but the need for specialist stock on the Stourbridge line means twi class 139s dedicated to it when only one is ever in service - i.e. half of the trains are sat idle because there has to be some spare - you aren't going to naively assume that one unit will be indestructible and always be available for service - and with standard DMU/EMU carriages costing over a million pounds, having a branch that uses trains inefficiently costs a lot of money that has to be paid for somehow

Alternatively you can have a situation like the Marston Vale line (apologies for bringing up this lightly used line, but Forum tradition dictates that it gets mentioned on any thread that's over a hundred posts long), where the DMUs used in pre-230 days were common to LNW but didn't operate any other routes near the Marston Vale stations, so LNW had to arrange long ECS movements back to the West Midlands so that the 150/153 could be cycled in with the rest of the DMU fleet - on top of the reliability problem that a broken window on a unit on the Marston Vale would either see the branch reduced to just half frequency or trying to arrange for a driver and path down the WCML so that a 75mph DMU can come from Tydsley to Bletchley - quite the hassle

Sometimes the branch can become more uneconomical because of changes to the main line - e.g. the Thames Valley branches were able to use a large pool of 165s that Thames Trains/ FGW/ GWR also used on services to London/ Oxford etc. A big fleet can be more efficient in terms of the number of spares that you need to have. But with the electrification of the main GWML, that means fewer 165s based at Reading, which means any unit "spare" at Reading depot is only shared between a handful of diagrams, which pushes up the cost of operating the branches

But then is the alternative that you incorporate the branch line into the main line services, which can mean extending branch line platforms to accommodate trains the length of main line services and then use a lot more carriages as a result ... no easy answers!

When they sparked KX - Leeds the West Yorks PTE got a few EMUS for Leeds - Doncaster stoppers. They bought just enough for the planned service. Maintenance cover came from the large Neville Hill DMU allocation.
So for Stourbridge, they could have bought one of the people movers and used a unit from Tyseley for cover.
Thames valley is quite a big DMU operation. Ealing-Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley and Reading-basingstoke. Maybe 8 diagrams from 10.

 

[davetheguard]

As I recall it meant a terrible service from Henley to Twyford, and it stopped in a really odd little bay at Reading which was no more convenient for connections than just changing at Twyford. Worst of all it meant that my mate's parents used to give me a lift to Henley Station instead of Reading. Being driven straight up to the car park entrance at Reading beats the Henley shuttle every time!

I seem to remember the Henley direct service terminated in platform 10 bay at Reading - a platform that no longer exists since the rebuild. This old platform 10 was located beside the London end of platform 9 which was then the Up Relief line. This old platform 9 is now much rebuilt, is no longer the Up Relief, and is now known as platform 10!

I hope that makes some sort of sense!

 

[bavvo]

Your P&R- who is it for and for going which way?

Not sure what P&R is? The use case would be mostly for Henley people working or shopping in Reading (largest town nearby), plus onward travel from Reading and tourists and students (for the college) coming to Henley. The off peak fare is typically cheaper than parking in Reading for shopping for instance, but long waits at Twyford are off putting for me so I'm more likely to drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vehicles are grim. It's like a stunningly bad bus - overstaffed, too small, vibrates your bones out, not nearly enough seats. Being regular isn't much use when two of them can leave full before you get on it at school closing time. Basically it was less wretched as a mk 1 bubble car, but the best thing to do would probably be to tarmac over it and run an electric bus up and down

I don't understand why it isn't DOO, but I otherwise don't have an issue with it for a 5 minute journey. Think of it as the Brum airport shuttle or similar.

 

[Djgr]

I'm struggling to think of any reason why I'd ever be in a rush to get to Whitby tbh.

Have a say that I think Whitby is a great place.

 

[zwk500]

Have a say that I think Whitby is a great place.

It is, but the journey through the moors to get there is also worth savouring.

 

[Edsmith]

Interesting subject and the Bromley North branch really is a dilemma. The only possible option I can see is a conversion to light rail and an on street extension into the town centre and Bromley South and possibly further south down the A21 or possibly connecting it to Tramlink? Also a new station at New Street Hill.

The St Albans Abbey branch is similar and I've heard suggestions about converting that to light rail with an onstreet extension to the town centres at both ends, I'm not sure how practical that is?

 

[randyrippley]

With stops that frequent, some Class 777s would seem your best bet!

If the 777s ever get to work all the way to Preston that would make a lot of sense - a through Morecambe - Liverpool service would be useful

 

[urbophile]

If the 777s ever get to work all the way to Preston that would make a lot of sense - a through Morecambe - Liverpool service would be useful

Ok for those with good bladder control!

 

[randyrippley]

Ok for those with good bladder control!

Nothing new for Morecambe services. It's why the gents loos at Promenade station were so big

 

[Phil56]

The problem is the branch shuttles getting in the way of the main line and blocking the north end of the through platforms as they enter/leave Lancaster
To make best use of the line it needs several extra stations so it can really be a shuttle: Broadway, York Bridge, West End Rd bridge, Regent Rd bridge, Moneyclose Lane. Electrify to Morecambe, battery from there to Heysham
Anyone know of any spare EMUs with room for a battery?
We can't have diesels taking people to Eden North

Of course, if the cycle track line was reinstated, it would far better serve those populous areas as it used to do. I often think the wrong line was scrapped and the old electric lines should have been kept. Even more so now that Eden Project looks likely.

 

[nw1]

I've written before about the half-hourly Ascot to Aldershot shuttle. Used to be a through train from Waterloo, dividing at Ascot for Aldershot and for Reading. There's now a 10-minute connection at Ascot, which if the Waterloo train arrives on time is too much, but the latter quite commonly arrives exactly 10 minutes late if it got stuck behind a stopper back at Richmond. Determination for the shuttle to depart to the second (although this zeal somehow doesn't apply to the arriving main line train) means it being sent off literally as passengers are running across the bridge. Given that almost nobody starts their journey on the shuttle at Ascot, its passengers being pretty much wholly those connecting, and that this is the only rail service from London to significant places like Camberley, it's a shambles.

I do wonder how easy it would be to re-introduce the Ascot 'divider' as that would give a through journey from London to Camberley and presumably 4 coaches would suffice beyond Ascot to both Reading and Aldershot.

That said, the divider was a long time ago (mid 1970s?) - by 1981 it was already an Ascot to Guildford shuttle, though the Ascot connection was a tight (but reliable? I think this came up before) 3 minutes. It was a 5-unit shuttle service with generous turn arounds at each end of almost half an hour.

Through services were briefly reintroduced from 1988-91 but that was it in recent years.

 

[JonathanH]

I do wonder how easy it would be to re-introduce the Ascot 'divider' as that would give a through journey from London to Camberley and presumably 4 coaches would suffice beyond Ascot to both Reading and Guildford.

Far too complex for not enough passengers. Didn't the Ascot to Aldershot service get down to hourly off-peak at some point in the late 1990s?

 

[randyrippley]

Of course, if the cycle track line was reinstated, it would far better serve those populous areas as it used to do. I often think the wrong line was scrapped and the old electric lines should have been kept. Even more so now that Eden Project looks likely.

It would need a new bridge over the River Lune and demolition of a lot of new build housing

 

[TravelDream]

No no no… ha I wish! Since COVID it’s been an extremely unreliable (single track both sides of Queen St always cause delays and it’s first to be cut in staff shortages) two per hour service between Bay and Coryton. Five per hour seems like a distant dream now.

TFW have been hit pretty hard with staff shortages as well as 'new' trains being less reliable than hoped.

The line is the easiest to be cut because the Cardiff Bus baycar service follows a similar route (albeit near Central station rather than Queen Street) and ticket acceptance agreements are in place and well-known by drivers.

Also, I think five per hour is likely to return for the summer.

 

[Craig1122]

I do wonder how easy it would be to re-introduce the Ascot 'divider' as that would give a through journey from London to Camberley and presumably 4 coaches would suffice beyond Ascot to both Reading and Aldershot.

4 coaches wouldn't be enough Ascot - Reading at certain times of day. The level of traffic is surprisingly high, in fact the contra peak is probably busier than the traditional traffic to/from London at the moment. In addition most of the new 701 fleet will be fixed 10 car formation once it finally makes it into service. Also desirable to leave a little spare capacity in case of problems out of Paddington.

The service to Camberley is a classic shuttle problem. It's very poor for a town of that size but every solution hits a problem elsewhere on the network. There was a feasibility study done a while back which is on the Surrey County Council website for anyone interested.

 

[nw1]

Far too complex for not enough passengers. Didn't the Ascot to Aldershot service get down to hourly off-peak at some point in the late 1990s?

Fair point that there may not be enough demand, or (as @Craig1122 said) 4 coaches to Reading may in fact be insufficient, but is it really at all complex? Splitting and joining has always been a part of the Southern since at least the 1950s so it could be argued it's just standard practice.

As I suggested in my original email, the lack of an off-peak through service since at least 1981 (apart from 1988-91) might suggest low levels of demand, surprising for a town the size of Camberley, but just floating the idea.

 

[M&NEJ]

It would need a new bridge over the River Lune and demolition of a lot of new build housing

The disused Glasson branch swings westwards from Lancaster platforms 1 & 2 and for its first half mile heads directly towards the Lune, to a point opposite the former Midland line which was on the opposite bank. I'm pretty sure the recent housing developments have left most of the Glasson branch embankment intact; so a bridge over the river would join two former alignments in the most direct route possible from Lancaster to Morecambe.

The highways people would love to have a bridge in the same place, to get HGVs from the Lune industrial estate onto the new "bypass" (Bay Gateway as they call it). So a combined road/rail bridge might actually be desirable. The problem might be the outrcry if rails were put back on the Midland route, such is its popularity for cycling and walking.

 

[Craig1122]

Fair point that there may not be enough demand, or (as @Craig1122 said) 4 coaches to Reading may in fact be insufficient, but is it really at all complex? Splitting and joining has always been a part of the Southern since at least the 1950s so it could be argued it's just standard practice.

As I suggested in my original email, the lack of an off-peak through service since at least 1981 (apart from 1988-91) might suggest low levels of demand, surprising for a town the size of Camberley, but just floating the idea.

The current service certainly suppresses demand, one issue identified by the SCC study is that most London commuting traffic is diverted to nearby Farnborough. Even compared to a direct service from Camberley this route is much quicker so it's questionable how much more traffic could be gained. The study looked at reinstating a direct connection to the South West Mainline but then lack of paths into Waterloo becomes an issue. Also if all this does is divert passengers from Farnborough rather than generate new business then it torpedoes any business case!

Looking at a mid seventies timetable there was regular splitting and joining at both Ascot and Staines. However the London area service was very much poorer than today (at least comparing pre lockdown). In essence there was much more scope for service recovery in the event of any problems with the split or join. During the Stagecoach era SWT was very averse to it as it was generally reckoned to cause a disproportionate number of delays. So for example changes like running 8 coach all day rather than 4 off peak were made.

 

[JonathanH]

During the Stagecoach era SWT was very averse to it as it was generally reckoned to cause a disproportionate number of delays. So for example changes like running 8 coach all day rather than 4 off peak were made.

Only from 2003 and the subsequent major timetable change in December 2004. Prior to that SWT had run 4tph 4-car services to Reading off-peak (although the service via Hounslow wasn't exactly quick).

Punctuality of the Reading line was particularly poor in the early 2000s before the 2004 changes.

However the London area service was very much poorer than today (at least comparing pre lockdown).

Indeed, the 2004 changes improved the London area services on the 'Windsor lines' to a level almost unimaginable before at cost of longer distance travellers. There is no way a direct service from Camberley (or indeed anywhere else via Ascot) could (or will ever) be competitive with the services from the main line through Farnborough.

 

[Taunton]

Surely part of the lesser demand at Camberley etc is because of the poor service time to London in the first place. It was far better patronised when it had reliable through trains. I did see it described that the main reason for breaking the divided service at Ascot was to have a punctual frequent shuttle which benefitted the performance statistics, which are measured by the train. Going right through from Ascot to Guildford is painfully slow, if anyone ever does it; it's probably quicker (though more haxardous) to bicycle.

Farnborough may have a faster service to London but it is quite a hike from Camberley town, and in the wrong direction. There are a string of stations scattered across the Blackwater Valley, from Bracknell down to Farnham, which while well sited for their towns have poor services to London.

 

[JonathanH]

Going right through from Ascot to Guildford is painfully slow, if anyone ever does it; it's probably quicker (though more haxardous) to bicycle.

No longer connected - shuttles Guildford to Farnham and Ascot to Aldershot.

There are a string of stations scattered across the Blackwater Valley, from Bracknell down to Farnham, which while well sited for their towns have poor services to London.

There is no chance of a change to services from these stations. The infrastructure needed could never be justified.

 

[D6130]

Have a say that I think Whitby is a great place.

The St Ives of the North.....beautiful and quaint, but with similarly unpleasant and dirty seagulls!

 

[Craig1122]

Only from 2003 and the subsequent major timetable change in December 2004. Prior to that SWT had run 4tph 4-car services to Reading off-peak (although the service via Hounslow wasn't exactly quick).

Ahh yes, I'd forgotten that brief interlude. I think the end to end time was similar as it had more stops at the London end but skipped some on the Reading line? A good idea on paper as it both increased frequency and gave more direct connections. It was never reliable though as amongst other problems it required sharing the 2 platforms at Reading with the North Downs Line, so delays spread between the two routes. Would be more robust now as a third platform has been added.

A timely reminder that many of the 'crayon' ideas both in this thread & elsewhere couldn't work without expensive infrastructure being added to make them reliable.

 

[GordonT]

I suppose a further "unsatisfactory" implication of many branch shuttles must be the logistics of providing traincrew reliefs for tea-breaks and shift changes especially if the shuttle route is some considerable distance from the nearest traincrew depot or signing-on point. Do the timetables of any shuttles have strategic gaps in them to enable traincrew breaks without the need for additional staff cover? Not a particularly passenger-friendly practice if it does exist but a tempting one for the operator. I wonder which branch shuttles are contenders for being the most awkward in terms of crew changes?

 

[nw1]

No longer connected - shuttles Guildford to Farnham and Ascot to Aldershot.


There is no chance of a change to services from these stations. The infrastructure needed could never be justified.

For a time though Farnham did have a pretty quick service into London: from 1989 to some time after 2000, there was one tph which either went fast Clapham Junction-Woking or, some years (presumably because the Clapham stop would cause pathing issues) fast to Woking.

At this time it gained a West Byfleet stop but, more significantly, IIRC there was a pathing issue meaning it had to wait outside Woking for a platform: I think the timings c.2004 were xx23 Waterloo-xx00 Woking, quite a slowdown from the 25-odd minutes to get to Woking it had seen in the nineties with an unencumbered path.

Sorry another topic - the two posts have been merged...

I can imagine another type of unsatisfactory shuttle would be the one with an enforced high layover time. For example if a branch was 10 mins, but didn't justify more than an hourly service (e.g only one mainline train an hour to connect to, when the junction station is not a destination in its own right) the train would be spending a lot of time hanging around.

Incidentally, looking at the 1982/3 CWN for Bognor (sent to me by another forum member) there was a Bognor-Barnham-Bognor shuttle (in addition to fast and slow through London services, so 3tph at Bognor in total).

While the timings allowed this Bognor-Barnham-Bognor shuttle to interwork nicely with the slower London service, in most hours it did not, and instead a single unit worked the shuttle with long layover times for both it and the London service - which seemed a little strange.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not sure what P&R is? The use case would be mostly for Henley people working or shopping in Reading (largest town nearby), plus onward travel from Reading and tourists and students (for the college) coming to Henley. The off peak fare is typically cheaper than parking in Reading for shopping for instance, but long waits at Twyford are off putting for me so I'm more likely to drive.

P & R is Park and Ride sorry. The P and R would be more for those commuting into/shopping in Henley to park outside for a small charge, take a cheap and reliable train into the town centre and save money/fuel on limited parking in Henley town centre.
It would be even more useful during Regatta times.
For the benefit of other non-local users, Henley town centre has narrow streets and some of the worst pollution and congestion hotspots in the UK, and a population that skews older, so there is a health incentive to invest in this project.
An intensive network of P and R buses wouldn't work, because of the narrow streets, congestion issues and a weak bridge on the road to one of the only potential park and ride sites.