3tph on North Downs Line

[FenMan]

DD is still a dump and very passenger-unfriendly.

Dorking Deepdene is basically a couple of platforms on a bridge crossing a N-S line to, these days, nowhere, unless Horsham or Box Hill is a big draw. It's not a pleasant place to wait for a train when it's cold and windy. But it does a job to the extent that "the railway" has judged the personal inconvenience is outweighed by giving passengers the opportunity to get where they want to go. It's far from ideal, but, like so many parts of the network, it does a job (but not nearly as well as it could do).

 

[infobleep]

Dorking Deepdene is basically a couple of platforms on a bridge crossing a N-S line to, these days, nowhere, unless Horsham or Box Hill is a big draw. It's not a pleasant place to wait for a train when it's cold and windy. But it does a job to the extent that "the railway" has judged the personal inconvenience is outweighed by giving passengers the opportunity to get where they want to go. It's far from ideal, but, like so many parts of the network, it does a job (but not nearly as well as it could do).

There use to be buildings at Dorking Deepdene. No idea if it had public toilets.

 

[tornado]

I think the number of people using Dorking Deepdene as an interchange from the North Downs Line to others lines is very small. Unless you are a rail enthusiast, if you needed to do that you'd probably not bother and go by bus or car instead. It would only really work if some or all of the Dorking stations had high frequency services, otherwise the hassle of walking between them and then waiting around for the connection is too high.

From what I've seen it seems to be used mostly by students going to/from the colleges and schools along the line.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think the number of people using Dorking Deepdene as an interchange from the North Downs Line to others lines is very small. Unless you are a rail enthusiast, if you needed to do that you'd probably not bother and go by bus or car instead. It would only really work if some or all of the Dorking stations had high frequency services, otherwise the hassle of walking between them and then waiting around for the connection is too high.

From what I've seen it seems to be used mostly by students going to/from the colleges and schools along the line.

I used to use it for interchange sometimes and was usually accompanied by significant numbers of people doing the same. Dorking (main) has enough trains to make it worthwhile.

I think the point about the 3tph is it is to accommodate existing traffic but also to encourage more rail use, so stopping the 'fast' at Dorking should do just that locally. However this really needs to be accompanied by a big increase in facilities at DD so that those attracted to use it do not say "never again"!

Dorking Deepdene is basically a couple of platforms on a bridge crossing a N-S line to, these days, nowhere, unless Horsham or Box Hill is a big draw. It's not a pleasant place to wait for a train when it's cold and windy. But it does a job to the extent that "the railway" has judged the personal inconvenience is outweighed by giving passengers the opportunity to get where they want to go. It's far from ideal, but, like so many parts of the network, it does a job (but not nearly as well as it could do).

Except, as I said earlier, all the many stations on the two routes via Epsom to London.

 

[infobleep]

I think the number of people using Dorking Deepdene as an interchange from the North Downs Line to others lines is very small. Unless you are a rail enthusiast, if you needed to do that you'd probably not bother and go by bus or car instead. It would only really work if some or all of the Dorking stations had high frequency services, otherwise the hassle of walking between them and then waiting around for the connection is too high.

From what I've seen it seems to be used mostly by students going to/from the colleges and schools along the line.

When I was traveling to Amberley I changed at Dorking and Horsham. Alas the connection at Horsham was poor ut this was, if I remember rightly, still faster than going via Redhill.

I do have an interest in railways but I suspect anyone who doesn't have a car would have done just the same.

 

[cle]

Yes that was my thinking in listing out the places. Maybe somebody from Betchworth is going to Earlsfield, but likely not materially enough to be worth it. Wimbledon is the biggest centre, and Epsom after that. I suppose Sutton I should have mentioned.

Guildford has (fairly slow) services to Earlsfield and Wimbledon already anyway though. Anyone for Clapham or London would be quicker using Guildford or Redhill, depending on where you are and the timings.

And Dorking has a pitiful service heading south. So it's hardly a great axis. I did caveat this - if the coastal services were there, it'd be different! The fact is that it performs a very similar, but worse function to Guildford and Redhill. Some local journeys and school/college stuff, of course - but I'd think 2tph decent until the infrastructure supported a more buttoned up operation.

 

[infobleep]

Yes that was my thinking in listing out the places. Maybe somebody from Betchworth is going to Earlsfield, but likely not materially enough to be worth it. Wimbledon is the biggest centre, and Epsom after that. I suppose Sutton I should have mentioned.

Guildford has (fairly slow) services to Earlsfield and Wimbledon already anyway though. Anyone for Clapham or London would be quicker using Guildford or Redhill, depending on where you are and the timings.

And Dorking has a pitiful service heading south. So it's hardly a great axis. I did caveat this - if the coastal services were there, it'd be different! The fact is that it performs a very similar, but worse function to Guildford and Redhill. Some local journeys and school/college stuff, of course - but I'd think 2tph decent until the infrastructure supported a more buttoned up operation.

I doubt it would be fast via Guildford during the period when no fast trains stop at Clapham Junction.

 

[Minstral25]

It seems that the new timetable provides a regular almost Clockface half hourly fast service between Guildford, Dorking, Reigate and Redhill. That is definitely a very good thing and will be appreciated by local users. I suspect from travelling on the route there are many more local users than Reading to Gatwick passengers so this is a real benefit to encourage using public transport.

The slight disappointment is that the hourly local service doesn't call all stations between Guildford and Redhill to encourage more local usage. The uninspiring irregular calls should be fixed with this timetable although I guess patronage may be the reason its not happening, plus short turnaround at Redhill.

 

[JN114]

It’s a mix of the two.

The stopping service is constrained at Guildford in both directions by the fast overtaking, so it cannot depart earlier or arrive back later. The fasts are constrained by conflicting paths with other operators at the ends of the route (so Reading <> Wokingham and Redhill <> Gatwick)

With the timeframe available, it can just about get to Redhill and back stopping at around half the stations on the way. Add in any more stops, and you won’t be arriving at Redhill in time to depart back on time.

The only way you might get the extra stops in would be if another unit and extra crew could be found, you could run the stopper all stations, and have a 50+ minute turnaround in the sidings at Redhill. But I’m not sure if the traffic justifies that.

 

[Minstral25]

It’s a mix of the two.

The stopping service is constrained at Guildford in both directions by the fast overtaking, so it cannot depart earlier or arrive back later. The fasts are constrained by conflicting paths with other operators at the ends of the route (so Reading <> Wokingham and Redhill <> Gatwick)

With the timeframe available, it can just about get to Redhill and back stopping at around half the stations on the way. Add in any more stops, and you won’t be arriving at Redhill in time to depart back on time.

The only way you might get the extra stops in would be if another unit and extra crew could be found, you could run the stopper all stations, and have a 50+ minute turnaround in the sidings at Redhill. But I’m not sure if the traffic justifies that.

The evening peak services seem to manage it with a 6 minute turn round which in my book is a bit tight. But they do seem to have a 50 minute turn round at Reading, so perhaps split the turn rounds and use the alternative half hour for the return trip which currently has no service in the gap - giving a 20 minute turn round at Reading, 30 mins at Redhill.

 

[JonathanH]

The evening peak services seem to manage it with a 6 minute turn round which in my book is a bit tight. But they do seem to have a 50 minute turn round at Reading, so perhaps split the turn rounds and use the alternative half hour for the return trip which currently has no service in the gap - giving a 20 minute turn round at Reading, 30 mins at Redhill.

A few things missed in those thoughts. The main issue is that the stoppers in each direction are in opposite half-hours at Guildford (eg xx04-xx19 east and and xx35-xx48 west) and both need to use platform 8. I don't think you can simply move the stopper to the opposite half hour. Also, there is interworking, not the same each hour, between the various services at Reading so it isn't always 50 minutes at Reading. Also, having a train hang around Redhill for thirty minutes may put it in the way of something else.

How important are journeys between the stations between Guildford and Reigate? I appreciate a train every two hours isn't ideal but the potential passenger load at Chilworth, Gomshall and Betchworth is pretty limited given the population of those places.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It’s probably possible for the stoppers to make extra calls in some hours but the projected usage is low and the performance impact high. For example, the southbound stopper on a skip-stop pattern departs Guildford P8 at xx18 which is after the xx17 SWR arrival from Portsmouth into P5. In order to accommodate extra stops, the stopper would have to depart at xx13 and cross in front of the SWR. Given that the fast calls at xx08-10 in P4, this makes it very tight and removes any robustness from the overtake. Ie if the fast is more than about 1-min late, the stopper is delayed and either held for the SWR (thereby going forward 4-5 late and knocking its turnaround at Redhill) or the Waterloo-bound train runs late which has its own problems.

The route has a relatively high performance risk at 3tph so retaining performance margins in the structure of the plan is pretty much essential to keep it all on track on a live basis.

 

[DelW]

How important are journeys between the stations between Guildford and Reigate? I appreciate a train every two hours isn't ideal but the potential passenger load at Chilworth, Gomshall and Betchworth is pretty limited given the population of those places.

Those villages are also served by the parallel Guildford - Redhill bus route 32, which (pre-Covid at least) ran roughly hourly from 7am to 7pm. End to end it's very slow, but that's less of an issue for short local journeys. The bus stops are also much better located than the stations!

Many of the issues referred to above stem from congestion at Guildford, yet to me it seems platforms 2 and 3 there are under used. They can't be used by Reading trains themselves, but IIRC when I first used Guildford station in the early '70s, many of the Portsmouth trains used platforms 2 and 3 rather than 4 and 5. Nowadays 2 and 3 mainly seem to be used for stabling terminating locals from Waterloo via Woking or via Effingham. Is there any potential to move Portsmouth services back into 2 and 3, to free up 4 or 5 for North Downs trains making overtaking moves?

 

[Dibbo4025]

Those villages are also served by the parallel Guildford - Redhill bus route 32, which (pre-Covid at least) ran roughly hourly from 7am to 7pm. End to end it's very slow, but that's less of an issue for short local journeys. The bus stops are also much better located than the stations!

Many of the issues referred to above stem from congestion at Guildford, yet to me it seems platforms 2 and 3 there are under used. They can't be used by Reading trains themselves, but IIRC when I first used Guildford station in the early '70s, many of the Portsmouth trains used platforms 2 and 3 rather than 4 and 5. Nowadays 2 and 3 mainly seem to be used for stabling terminating locals from Waterloo via Woking or via Effingham. Is there any potential to move Portsmouth services back into 2 and 3, to free up 4 or 5 for North Downs trains making overtaking moves?

Platform 2 can't be freed it's needed for the Effingham terminators - you can't work them all from platform 1 as you have to have a decent length dwell at one end of the route for a robust timetable and putting that at the Waterloo end is not going to happen, especially just for what is in comparison to Waterloo a rural backwater. 3 is available most of the day and possibly could be made to work all day but using it I either the up or down direction requires conflicting moves at both ends of Guildford which is too much of a constraint on timetables and operations.

So essentially no they can't be

 

[DelW]

Platform 2 can't be freed it's needed for the Effingham terminators - you can't work them all from platform 1 as you have to have a decent length dwell at one end of the route for a robust timetable and putting that at the Waterloo end is not going to happen, especially just for what is in comparison to Waterloo a rural backwater. 3 is available most of the day and possibly could be made to work all day but using it I either the up or down direction requires conflicting moves at both ends of Guildford which is too much of a constraint on timetables and operations.

So essentially no they can't be

I thought it might be that the various Effingham services couldn't all be accommodated in the bay. It's a pity the rebuilt north stabling sidings don't have a connection from the Cobham line, which might have enabled them to move out of the way. But I suppose SWR aren't really going to consider making more space for GWR services as a priority.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The evening peak services seem to manage it with a 6 minute turn round which in my book is a bit tight. But they do seem to have a 50 minute turn round at Reading, so perhaps split the turn rounds and use the alternative half hour for the return trip which currently has no service in the gap - giving a 20 minute turn round at Reading, 30 mins at Redhill.

If you swap either of the stopping services onto the opposite half hour you end up with both overtaking moves happening at Guildford at the same time for which there aren’t enough available platforms.

 

[infobleep]

A few things missed in those thoughts. The main issue is that the stoppers in each direction are in opposite half-hours at Guildford (eg xx04-xx19 east and and xx35-xx48 west) and both need to use platform 8. I don't think you can simply move the stopper to the opposite half hour. Also, there is interworking, not the same each hour, between the various services at Reading so it isn't always 50 minutes at Reading. Also, having a train hang around Redhill for thirty minutes may put it in the way of something else.

How important are journeys between the stations between Guildford and Reigate? I appreciate a train every two hours isn't ideal but the potential passenger load at Chilworth, Gomshall and Betchworth is pretty limited given the population of those places.

Interestingly enough, the National Rail Enquiries App suggests changing at Guildford for services form Gomshall to those east of it but that isn't allowed on a single ticket.

If you swap either of the stopping services onto the opposite half hour you end up with both overtaking moves happening at Guildford at the same time for which there aren’t enough available platforms.

If they build another platform at Guildford as is suspose to happen, I assume this problem would get resolved.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Interestingly enough, the National Rail Enquiries App suggests changing at Guildford for services form Gomshall to those east of it but that isn't allowed on a single ticket.


If they build another platform at Guildford as is suspose to happen, I assume this problem would get resolved.

You’d still have the problem of a very long turnaround at Redhill.

Not sure during the day there is a need for the local stations to be served hourly.

 

[Deepgreen]

You’d still have the problem of a very long turnaround at Redhill.

Not sure during the day there is a need for the local stations to be served hourly.

The problem is that the reduced service provision deters potential users, which tends to confirm planners' views that the traffic is low, and so on. There's perhaps merit in an hourly service to rebuild traffic (C19 aside) locally. The present slow service's alternating pattern is confusing/unhelpful for the casual local user.

 

[TEW]

Platform 2 can't be freed it's needed for the Effingham terminators - you can't work them all from platform 1 as you have to have a decent length dwell at one end of the route for a robust timetable and putting that at the Waterloo end is not going to happen, especially just for what is in comparison to Waterloo a rural backwater. 3 is available most of the day and possibly could be made to work all day but using it I either the up or down direction requires conflicting moves at both ends of Guildford which is too much of a constraint on timetables and operations.

So essentially no they can't be

The present Covid timetable for SWR uses platforms 1, 2 and 3 all day. Some of the services via Cobham have to run out of the standard pattern to free up platforms for MPV runs or Portsmouth services via Cobham.

I thought it might be that the various Effingham services couldn't all be accommodated in the bay. It's a pity the rebuilt north stabling sidings don't have a connection from the Cobham line, which might have enabled them to move out of the way. But I suppose SWR aren't really going to consider making more space for GWR services as a priority.

North Box Sidings is accessible from the Cobham Line, they can only be accessed from platforms 2 or 4. Using them for more than just stabling overnight or occasionally during disruption would probably not be overly practical though because of the operating arrangements.

 

[Bald Rick]

If they build another platform at Guildford as is suspose to happen, I assume this problem would get resolved.

Delete “is supposed to happen”, and replace with “as has been suggested”

 

[infobleep]

Delete “is supposed to happen”, and replace with “as has been suggested”

Thanks for clarifying that. I was misremembering.

 

[tornado]

This is how the fast train looks in the new December timetable looks (right) compared to currently (left).

Reading-Wokingham: 1/2 min slower
Guildford-Dorking: 1 min slower
Dorking-Reigate: 1/2 min slower
Reigate-Redhill: 1 min slower
Overall: 3 min slower

Redhill-Reigate: 1/2 min slower
Dorking-Guildford: 1.5 min slower
Guildford-Wokingham: 1/2 min faster
Wokingham-Reading: 1/2 min slower
Overall: 2 min slower

I was thinking this would correlate with the diesel-only sections of the line as the class 769 is slower on diesel, but it seems across the board.

Also, the 3tph doesn't seem have been extended to the full day Mon-Fri, unless it's not loaded yet?

 

[JonathanH]

Also, the 3tph doesn't seem have been extended to the full day Mon-Fri, unless it's not loaded yet?

Has the concept been proven yet? Is the demand likely to sustain it?

There are quite a few 'runs as required' trains shown which presumably can't run until some 769s are increasing the fleet size. Some retiming in the morning peak as well, presumably to put right complaints about key arrival times.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Has the concept been proven yet? Is the demand likely to sustain it?

There are quite a few 'runs as required' trains shown which presumably can't run until some 769s are increasing the fleet size. Some retiming in the morning peak as well, presumably to put right complaints about key arrival times.

The 3tph is not dependent on 769 introduction, which I think has been mentioned several times on this thread. The 769 introduction allows Turbos to be released for the Metrowest enhancements, which arent happening for a while yet.

 

[JonathanH]

The 3tph is not dependent on 769 introduction, which I think has been mentioned several times on this thread. The 769 introduction allows Turbos to be released for the Metrowest enhancements, which arent happening for a while yet.

19 769s appear to replace 16 3-car 165s with 10 2-car 165s at Reading before and after. Where is my maths wrong?

16 769 diagrams (10 North Downs, 4 Basingstoke (1 peak), 1 Henley, 1 Bourne End (peak))
9 2-car 165 diagrams (Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Bedwyn (peak), 5 Oxford locals (2 peak))

 

[JN114]

The 3tph is not dependent on 769 introduction, which I think has been mentioned several times on this thread. The 769 introduction allows Turbos to be released for the Metrowest enhancements, which arent happening for a while yet.

There aren’t enough Turbos for 3tph all day M-F, utilisation of LTV fleet is already at 24/27 as it is - they’d be a huge amount of kickback from Ops/Performance if the new measures for resilience introduced on N Downs and Basingstoke last December were rescinded in favour of running additional trains within the fleet availability we have, and I seriously doubt engineering would accept 25/27. A 25th unit is generally used daily to replace a failure of some description, and that leaves you 1x 2 car and 1x 3 car stopped for B Exam or other heavy work.

There’s no point running 3tph if you’re going to tank performance to do it, You need some of the 769s in service to get the available number of LTV “Diesels” up to 25, then we can go 3tph all day. That doesn’t necessarily have to be on N Downs in service, just freeing up Turbos.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The all day SX 3TPH isn’t going to be in before all the 769’s are delivered. The work at Gatwick and making sure the gradual move to full 3TPH isn’t going to wreck performance means that there won’t be an availability issue in the transition.

 

[Siemens Staines]

There aren’t enough Turbos for 3tph all day M-F, utilisation of LTV fleet is already at 24/27 as it is - they’d be a huge amount of kickback from Ops/Performance if the new measures for resilience introduced on N Downs and Basingstoke last December were rescinded in favour of running additional trains within the fleet availability we have, and I seriously doubt engineering would accept 25/27. A 25th unit is generally used daily to replace a failure of some description, and that leaves you 1x 2 car and 1x 3 car stopped for B Exam or other heavy work.

There’s no point running 3tph if you’re going to tank performance to do it, You need some of the 769s in service to get the available number of LTV “Diesels” up to 25, then we can go 3tph all day. That doesn’t necessarily have to be on N Downs in service, just freeing up Turbos.

Are there really 27 LTV turbos at Reading? I thought that since 166204 moved to Bristol that it was now down to 26 165101-114/16/17 & 165118-127.

 

[JN114]

Are there really 27 LTV turbos at Reading? I thought that since 166204 moved to Bristol that it was now down to 26 165101-114/16/17 & 165118-127.

You're right, I just can't add...