SWR new services

Does anyone have any idea why the 1P16 has had a further 2 mins added between Woking and Waterloo - journey time now of 32 minutes compared with 28 pre the timetable change in May. Is it a pathing issue with a new service?

mchd2000 said:

Does anyone have any idea why the 1P16 has had a further 2 mins added between Woking and Waterloo - journey time now of 32 minutes compared with 28 pre the timetable change in May. Is it a pathing issue with a new service?

Click to expand...

It’ll be to allow for operation by a useless 442? (Other more realistic answers may appear below...)

mchd2000 said:

Does anyone have any idea why the 1P16 has had a further 2 mins added between Woking and Waterloo - journey time now of 32 minutes compared with 28 pre the timetable change in May. Is it a pathing issue with a new service?

Click to expand...

Bear in mind a let fall timetable operates until 15/12/19 ,because if enter a date mid-January 1p16 has a running time of 24 mins from departing Woking (0727) to Waterloo arrival (0751).

swt_passenger said:

It’ll be to allow for operation by a useless 442? (Other more realistic answers may appear below...)

Click to expand...

Would need about 15 minutes extra if it were timed for a 442.

Doesn’t look like it can be to do with low adhesion season as it is the only train in the morning peak to have had this impromptu journey time extension.
Must either be to do with the 442s or simply because SWR couldn’t meet the old journey time

I don’t believe the additional 2 minutes has anything to do with 442s. Trawling RTT for August (when 442’s were running) and September (when they were not) shows no significant difference, in the main, of arrival times in Waterloo. For 1P16 442’s recorded quite a number of RT and 1 minute late arrivals. Yes, there were many instances of more than this but looking at the performance of arrivals around that time suggest that the larger delays were part of general performance on the day. Equally, when you look at September (444/450s only) there are many instances of late arrivals, again no doubt influenced by general performance issues. I’ve no doubt that in the early days of running 442s there would have been staff familiarity issues but Drivers tend to work up their driving technique as they gain more experience – conservative at first, then knowing when they can stretch the legs as it were. It would be interesting if any Driver who had worked 442s a number of times since reintroduction could comment (any takers, without compromising their position of course!?). My guess is that the response would be along the lines of “it’s certainly more of a challenge to keep to time with a 442, but with experience and professionalism, it’s achievable”.

Whether the same could be said during the coming leaf fall season is another matter (without re tractioning).


On a more general point, (and a bit off topic but related to 442s), travelling from, say, Havant to Waterloo give me a 442 over a 450 anytime! The off peak “product” has for years been diluted by regularly using 450’s on class 1s. The same currently applies from Fareham where you can have a nice 444 journey or a less comfortable 450. Not good for attracting occasional off peak users (“uncomfortable journey last time, won’t bother if that’s what you get”). Pre 442 proposal I was always hoping that the release of 450s (by the introduction of 707s) would give the opportunity to create a sub fleet of 2+2 seating 450s (like LM). Not only could this have addressed the 3+2 on class 1s it would have created much more flexibility in train formation for the peaks – effectively an opportunity to tweak workings to try to balance the needs of medium and longer distance passengers (like used to happen with CIGs and VEPs); generally 3+2 on the London end if required but 2+2 behind. Certainly from Waterloo I used to witness a lot of “in the know” Petersfield, Havant, Portsmouth passengers move down the platform at Waterloo to get a 2+2 while Woking/Guildford passengers seemed quite happy to take the first available seat (in the VEPs). I think the 442s will be here to stay now (too much already committed to the project) but should they be abandoned then a good look at the LM 350s to create a mixed fleet of 450/350 2+2 (with shoes of course!) would make sense. It’s not rocket science (actually, in today’s railway, it probably is!).

Are you sure you have looked up the right dates for 1/9P16? It was running as 9P16 when it was 442 operated, which was only for a few weeks. It was very unreliable indeed when 442 operated, I am not sure it was on time ever. Peak time services are not reliable generally on SWR, but the use of 442s on that service definitely made it noticeably worse.

Ah, I may have to fall on my sword here as, looking back, they did not come into service on the PDL until Monday 19th August. I need to find out when they ceased and then make a comparison on the PDL running to Guildford as that is the real test; after that they are subject to pathing at Woking etc which would make it difficult to assess. Well pointed out though!

I did try to have a look myself, but was only able to find data for the first week. The Friday of the first week they did manage an On Time arrival in to Waterloo, but I suspect that was the only occasion. The performance South of Guildford compared to a 444/450 seemed to be the main issue. I suspect this was caused by a combination of crew unfamiliarity, slightly poorer performance and slower dwell times.

It appears that 1P16 is being delayed on almost a daily basis due to a tight pathing through Havant. A Portsmouth to Littlehampton service departs Havant just 2 minutes before 1P16 which leads to a delay almost daily which leads to conflict further upstream as the service gets to Guildford and Woking Jn etc.