• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

3tph on North Downs Line

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Disruption and delays aside, if a GWR train is late, financially, would it be cheaper to delay other trains than stop the train short, which counts as a PPM failure; would it be more expensive or make no difference financially.

I'm not sure what financial decision you think exists. (I accept that the question of itself is valid.)

JN114 has explained that NR Sussex won't let the Gatwick trains go beyond Redhill if they are more than 10 minutes late (ie later than the Bedford to Gatwick service which leaves Redhill at xx55 or if they are going to delay or run behind the xx03 Gatwick to Bedford service). If they just went to Gatwick late, you delay the next Victoria to Reigate terminator at Redhill and that delays the next Bedford to Gatwick service. You also run the risk of running behind the Guildford to Aldershot or Waterloo to Reading train and if either of those happen the next Reafing to Gatwick will be delayed. From a practical perspective, late Gatwick trains have to be turned at Redhill.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
Disruption and delays aside, if a GWR train is late, financially, would it be cheaper to delay other trains than stop the train short, which counts as a PPM failure; would it be more expensive or make no difference financially.

Possibly, but those that make the decisions aren’t formally aware of the financial arrangements and thus aren’t interested. They’re tasked with minimising overall delay. (It’s practically word-for-word line 1 of my job description) Generally, altering the GWR service will contain any disruption to the GWR service. A small delay to Thameslink can translate a great distance and thus cause much greater reactionary delay. The big picture is important.

A train below the PPM threshold generally won’t meet my “reasonable-ness” for alteration; and I’ll generally resist calls from NR Sussex to terminate short; but ultimately if Sussex TRC tells Three Bridges Box not to route my train towards Gatwick, I can only protest that decision; I can’t overrule them.

If the choice is PPM failure x2 due to Part Cancellation x2 and minimal risk of reactionary delay vs PPM failure x2 due to late arrival/departure and high risk of reactionary delay due to late running; then it’s my job to go with option 1.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Possibly, but those that make the decisions aren’t formally aware of the financial arrangements and thus aren’t interested. They’re tasked with minimising overall delay. (It’s practically word-for-word line 1 of my job description) Generally, altering the GWR service will contain any disruption to the GWR service. A small delay to Thameslink can translate a great distance and thus cause much greater reactionary delay. The big picture is important.

A train below the PPM threshold generally won’t meet my “reasonable-ness” for alteration; and I’ll generally resist calls from NR Sussex to terminate short; but ultimately if Sussex TRC tells Three Bridges Box not to route my train towards Gatwick, I can only protest that decision; I can’t overrule them.

If the choice is PPM failure x2 due to Part Cancellation x2 and minimal risk of reactionary delay vs PPM failure x2 due to late arrival/departure and high risk of reactionary delay due to late running; then it’s my job to go with option 1.
Thanks for that. I found it interesting. I wasn't trying to pick holes, just understand it.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
My local AHB crossing at Brockham has just had bright yellow CCTV equipment installed. Is this a precursor to 3tph, or just a coincidence?
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Possibly, but those that make the decisions aren’t formally aware of the financial arrangements and thus aren’t interested. They’re tasked with minimising overall delay. (It’s practically word-for-word line 1 of my job description) Generally, altering the GWR service will contain any disruption to the GWR service. A small delay to Thameslink can translate a great distance and thus cause much greater reactionary delay. The big picture is important.

A train below the PPM threshold generally won’t meet my “reasonable-ness” for alteration; and I’ll generally resist calls from NR Sussex to terminate short; but ultimately if Sussex TRC tells Three Bridges Box not to route my train towards Gatwick, I can only protest that decision; I can’t overrule them.

If the choice is PPM failure x2 due to Part Cancellation x2 and minimal risk of reactionary delay vs PPM failure x2 due to late arrival/departure and high risk of reactionary delay due to late running; then it’s my job to go with option 1.

Indeed, and you can't be faulted for doing your job. The lack of a top-down passenger perspective is what is lacking today. Incidentally, at Redhill, there is still a lax attitude to timekeeping - I was there a few days ago and a late-running TL train was delayed even further while a platform staff member ambled up to the front to see it off. Staff need to be in position every time - if there are not enough, provide more! The operators can't bleat about 'every second counting' to excuse ten second cross-platform connections being missed, while they also allow this sort of minute-plus time wasting slackness.
 

Buckland

New Member
Joined
25 Apr 2019
Messages
1
The planning applications submitted prior to the safety installations at the Buckland and Brockham crossings cited a nationwide directive from Network Rail.....that said the improvements are also listed as improvements needed prior to service frequency being increased.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
The planning applications submitted prior to the safety installations at the Buckland and Brockham crossings cited a nationwide directive from Network Rail.....that said the improvements are also listed as improvements needed prior to service frequency being increased.

For reference

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2018/1942

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=MO/2018/1996
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Early indications from open data sites that even though the line retains 2tph (as expected) there are retimings of trains on this line from December (although the complete timetable is not loaded by any means) - notably
* the xx04 stopping services from Reading having non-standard departure times from Reading (anything between xx50 and xx04 depending on the hour)
* the Gatwick services are later from Reigate in some hours, many with extended running times
* the 0720 from Reigate to Redhill is delayed to 0724 (waiting three minutes at Reigate) to officially break the 'connection' into the 0729 Thameslink service from Redhill

Looks like timetabling even of 2tph on this route is becoming impossible with the changes on the Waterloo to Reading, Farnham to Guildford, Waterloo to Portsmouth and other routes via Redhill / Reigate.

I still can't believe that South Western Railway have been allowed to block platform 6 at Guildford with 26 minute turnarounds for their Farnham to Guildford shuttle while there are such difficult constraints on running the GWR service.

Obviously lots of work still to be done and it could yet change.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I still can't believe that South Western Railway have been allowed to block platform 6 at Guildford with 26 minute turnarounds for their Farnham to Guildford shuttle while there are such difficult constraints on running the GWR service.

I agree, that shuttle has 26 minutes at Guildford AND 44 minutes at Fareham okay at Fareham it has to shunt but there is more then enough time at Fareham for them to reduce the Guildford turnaround to 10 minutes and that's being generous!

I just think there's no need for SWR to block any platform for longer then it is required, TL block platform 2 at Luton for 40 minutes of every hour off peak and that's 2tph to Rainham which is a far longer route with 20 minute turnaround, in the peak this is reduced to 10 minutes so if TL can do it why can't SWR? Looking forward to those involved in train planning here to explain why the need is there for such a long turnaround at Guildford and Fareham!

Is there any need for the shuttle to run at all? Why not run it as part of a existing service?
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Early indications from open data sites that even though the line retains 2tph (as expected) there are retimings of trains on this line from December (although the complete timetable is not loaded by any means) - notably
* the xx04 stopping services from Reading having non-standard departure times from Reading (anything between xx50 and xx04 depending on the hour)
* the Gatwick services are later from Reigate in some hours, many with extended running times
* the 0720 from Reigate to Redhill is delayed to 0724 (waiting three minutes at Reigate) to officially break the 'connection' into the 0729 Thameslink service from Redhill

Looks like timetabling even of 2tph on this route is becoming impossible with the changes on the Waterloo to Reading, Farnham to Guildford, Waterloo to Portsmouth and other routes via Redhill / Reigate.

I still can't believe that South Western Railway have been allowed to block platform 6 at Guildford with 26 minute turnarounds for their Farnham to Guildford shuttle while there are such difficult constraints on running the GWR service.

Obviously lots of work still to be done and it could yet change.

The changes on north downs this December are nothing whatsoever to do with other operator’s changes (most operators in the area largely have a rollover) it’s solely that the North Downs service goes over to class 769 timing loads which are slower than turbos and so has had to be re-timed but with Redhill to Gatwick having fixed paths with have had to been ‘backtimed’ from Reading.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
The changes on north downs this December are nothing whatsoever to do with other operator’s changes it’s solely that the North Downs service goes over to class 769 timing loads which are slower than turbos.

Yes, but the pathing is then still constrained by how GWR fits into those other services. You are implying that the North Downs has to have a suboptimal timetable because all the slots between the other services are based on the use of Turbos and 769s can't then keep Turbo timings.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Yes, but the pathing is then still constrained by how GWR fits into those other services. You are implying that the North Downs has to have a suboptimal timetable because all the slots between the other services are based on the use of Turbos and 769s can't then keep Turbo timings.

No the big constraint is GWR are changing the timing load of their trains but as part of the Thameslink ESG agreed to fix their paths between Gatwick and Redhill.

Throw in the long signalling headways between North Camp and Wokingham and 30+ minute turnarounds at Reading which have been introduced (previous turnarounds now missed) have made the route very diffficult to timetable without recasting huge swathes of Southern England which the industry has chosen not to do.

Guildford isn’t actually a problem the times the trains are here being fixed at the Redhill end naturally puts Reading trains through platform 8 and Redhill bound trains through platform 4 (the south end moves at Guildford are generally parallel and platforms 6 and 8 are common south end throat).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,258
I agree, that shuttle has 26 minutes at Guildford AND 44 minutes at Fareham okay at Fareham it has to shunt but there is more then enough time at Fareham for them to reduce the Guildford turnaround to 10 minutes and that's being generous!

I just think there's no need for SWR to block any platform for longer then it is required, TL block platform 2 at Luton for 40 minutes of every hour off peak and that's 2tph to Rainham which is a far longer route with 20 minute turnaround, in the peak this is reduced to 10 minutes so if TL can do it why can't SWR? Looking forward to those involved in train planning here to explain why the need is there for such a long turnaround at Guildford and Fareham!

Is there any need for the shuttle to run at all? Why not run it as part of a existing service?
It’s to provide for a Guildford to Farnham through service, which possibly has more demand than Ascot to Guildford. It isn’t additional in terms of numbers at Guildford, it used to be a Guildford - Ascot shuttle.

(BTW you’ve written Fareham for Farnham a few times.)
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
It’s to provide for a Guildford to Farnham through service, which possibly has more demand than Ascot to Guildford. It isn’t additional in terms of numbers at Guildford, it used to be a Guildford - Ascot shuttle.

(BTW you’ve written Fareham for Farnham a few times.)

Ahh well they sound and look similar :lol:

My point is, do they really need such long turnarounds at both ends? Apart from the fact that at Farnham they need to shunt to clear the platform for the next service, surely they don't need 26 minutes to turnback at Guildford when they have all that time at Farnham to recover from any delays?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Ahh well they sound and look similar :lol:

My point is, do they really need such long turnarounds at both ends? Apart from the fact that at Farnham they need to shunt to clear the platform for the next service, surely they don't need 26 minutes to turnback at Guildford when they have all that time at Farnham to recover from any delays?

I think the intention is to give the best possible connection time from Alton to Waterloo trains into Farnham to Guildford ones and vice versa - the timing of Alton trains being constrained by the single line beyond Farnham and operation east of Pirbright Junction
 

SEPS

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2019
Messages
5
Given that the 769 stock has not run on the Gatwick route or any other, how can the timings be calculated and put into the timetable?
Connections from the west to the UK's 2nd airport need to be improved especially with the plans for a 2nd runway (expanded taxiway) at Gatwick.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Given that the 769 stock has not run on the Gatwick route or any other, how can the timings be calculated and put into the timetable?
Connections from the west to the UK's 2nd airport need to be improved especially with the plans for a 2nd runway (expanded taxiway) at Gatwick.
There are tools for modelling Sectional Running Times (SRTs)
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
Ahh well they sound and look similar :lol:

My point is, do they really need such long turnarounds at both ends? Apart from the fact that at Farnham they need to shunt to clear the platform for the next service, surely they don't need 26 minutes to turnback at Guildford when they have all that time at Farnham to recover from any delays?
The turnarounds at the Farnham end are not 44 minutes as you posted above but generally 18 minutes. Realstically the turnaround at the Farnham could only come down slightly because of the need to shunt via the reception road. The Guildford to Farnham service was fitted in with basically no changes to services on other routes, it's impressive that it was managed at all in my opinion, even though the turnarounds at Guildford are probably longer than ideal. It still leaves Platform 5 and 8 for up GWR services, and 4, 5 and 8 for down GWR services though.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
It’s to provide for a Guildford to Farnham through service, which possibly has more demand than Ascot to Guildford. It isn’t additional in terms of numbers at Guildford, it used to be a Guildford - Ascot shuttle.
Technically it still is a Guildford to Ascot shuttle on Sundays. If it was up to me I'd run them 7 days a week but I'm going off topic here.

The turnarounds at the Farnham end are not 44 minutes as you posted above but generally 18 minutes. Realstically the turnaround at the Farnham could only come down slightly because of the need to shunt via the reception road. The Guildford to Farnham service was fitted in with basically no changes to services on other routes, it's impressive that it was managed at all in my opinion, even though the turnarounds at Guildford are probably longer than ideal. It still leaves Platform 5 and 8 for up GWR services, and 4, 5 and 8 for down GWR services though.
In terms of the trains to Gatwick, platform 5 is scheduled to be used at least once day I believe. Platform 4 is the main platform for Gatwick bound trains though. Redhill bound ones mostly use platform 8.

Could they ever resolve the issue of trains departing Guildford to Gatwick at a consistent time? Currently it's anything from x06 to x13 and that doesn't include the late night x21.

Has the requirement to run 3 tph been dropped or is it still an aspiration?

It would be great if they could some day use more trains Mondays to Saturday, so that there would be a longer turn around at Gatwick, like there is on Sundays. This would help stop trains been terminated short and started short at Redhill, which can resulting in long delays for passengers, due to the timing of other trains south of Redhill. I don't now common this currently is. I'd they had run 3tph they would have needed more trains anyway.

Whenever we have these discussions we mustn't lose site of the fact it's a secondary route of lesser importance than others. If there is ever a change in fares structure across the south east or country, I do hope this lesser importance is kept in mind too, when reviewing the prices.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
The changes on north downs this December are nothing whatsoever to do with other operator’s changes (most operators in the area largely have a rollover) it’s solely that the North Downs service goes over to class 769 timing loads which are slower than turbos and so has had to be re-timed but with Redhill to Gatwick having fixed paths with have had to been ‘backtimed’ from Reading.
Currently the Reading to Redhill stoppers generally leave at XX04 arriving at XX23. From December the departures and arrivals are all over the place. Were the 769s always part of the plan or is that a recent development? At this rate we'll be back to 1980s first gen DMU timings.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
876
Location
redhill
thumpers left redhill at around xx33 and arrived an hour later at around xx15-20 dependant on stopping at the last three:D
where as now about 1h20 so unlikely to be anywhere near that perhaps 5 or 8 mins more
 

Dren Ahmeti

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2017
Messages
550
Location
Bristol
From December the departures and arrivals are all over the place. Were the 769s always part of the plan or is that a recent development?
The 769 timing loads does exist, but the paths with them were rejected by Network Rail after complaints from SWR, making these shoddy timings; 769 timings are not equal to Turbos.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
The 769 timing loads does exist, but the paths with them were rejected by Network Rail after complaints from SWR, making these shoddy timings; 769 timings are not equal to Turbos.

No, the paths for 3tph were rejected by Network Rail due to the ongoing level crossing issues.

The paths in the plan for December 2019 are in 769 timing loads and on diesel are these slower than turbos. There was originally to use the DC power of the 769s in some places but this has yet to come to fruition.

No complaints from SWR just some working together to make the plan work.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
No, the paths for 3tph were rejected by Network Rail due to the ongoing level crossing issues.

The paths in the plan for December 2019 are in 769 timing loads and on diesel are these slower than turbos. There was originally to use the DC power of the 769s in some places but this has yet to come to fruition.

No complaints from SWR just some working together to make the plan work.
Are the level crossing issues impossible to solve? By this I mean taking everything into account.
 

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
Am I right in thinking that these December timetable changes are just to align with 769 timings, but will still be operated by Turbos for some time?

When might the 769s actually appear on the North Downs line?
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
Not impossible with time and money though depends how much of both you have!

You forgot willingness. There has been ample time and I understand funding is available but Network Rail is displaying some resistance to removing the barrier to running more trains, whilst coming up with every excuse possible. Signaller workload at Three Bridges is a recent new obstacle being quoted.
 

FenMan

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2011
Messages
1,361
You forgot willingness. There has been ample time and I understand funding is available but Network Rail is displaying some resistance to removing the barrier to running more trains, whilst coming up with every excuse possible. Signaller workload at Three Bridges is a recent new obstacle being quoted.

I do admire how Network Rail can put in so many hard hours in order to avoid doing something. Productive.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,176
Signaller workload at Three Bridges is a recent new obstacle being quoted.

That’s not an excuse, that’s a very real issue at the moment ever since the new GTR recast timetable came in to use. Panel 4 Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges and Balcombe Tunnel Junction, put the signallers so under much strain under normal working conditions. So much so that the signallers time is 100% used and there is very little slack if any at all for dealing with out of course running, routine maintenance, signalling equipment or train failures and the GTR Thameslink depot is so poorly designed that it effects the Brighton Main Line both physically and by policy. Two solutions either modify the timetable not likely or reduce the workload by splitting it up, but who’s going to pay for the extra costs?
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
That’s not an excuse, that’s a very real issue at the moment ever since the new GTR recast timetable came in to use. Panel 4 Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges and Balcombe Tunnel Junction, put the signallers so under much strain under normal working conditions. So much so that the signallers time is 100% used and there is very little slack if any at all for dealing with out of course running, routine maintenance, signalling equipment or train failures and the GTR Thameslink depot is so poorly designed that it effects the Brighton Main Line both physically and by policy. Two solutions either modify the timetable not likely or reduce the workload by splitting it up, but who’s going to pay for the extra costs?

So to my eyes that is a problem very much caused by GTRs much larger timetable enhancement, and could / should have been identified and mitigated in advance. Therefore its hardly being created by the much more minor GWR proposal, which equates to an extra two moves per hour only. I don't hear anyone calling for the Thameslink service to be cut back until this problem is solved. Different rules for different operators!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top