3tph on North Downs Line

[Wilts Wanderer]

I think the route as a whole will be extremely difficult to plan 3tph if a requirement to cross trains at a specific place is added. There are already multiple major constraints;
1. Gatwick Airport platforming
2. Gatwick-Redhill paths
3. Redhill station working
4. Southern Reigate terminators
5. Gomshall long headways
6. Shalford Junction slots with SWT
7. Guildford station working
8. SWT Guildford-Ascot stoppers
9. Blackwater long headways (up to 12 mins)
10. Wokingham-Reading paths
11. Reading station working
12. Unit diagrams and turnarounds
13. Crewing

If you consider that 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are effectively fixed, and rights of flex over other operators are generally limited to 5 mins anyway, that leaves you very, very little to work with. If the 3tph timetable ultimately crosses trains at a busy LC it will be by chance not design. Hence why mitigation works are required.

Incidentally the business case will be heavily influenced by 12 and 13, as well as the overall journey times, and SLC franchise requirements for journey time and intervals. It's all very well coming up with a perfect pattern but if it has 30 min turnarounds at each end then it won't be resourcable.

 

[FenMan]

I think the route as a whole will be extremely difficult to plan 3tph if a requirement to cross trains at a specific place is added. There are already multiple major constraints;
1. Gatwick Airport platforming
2. Gatwick-Redhill paths
3. Redhill station working
4. Southern Reigate terminators
5. Gomshall long headways
6. Shalford Junction slots with SWT
7. Guildford station working
8. SWT Guildford-Ascot stoppers
9. Blackwater long headways (up to 12 mins)
10. Wokingham-Reading paths
11. Reading station working
12. Unit diagrams and turnarounds
13. Crewing

If you consider that 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are effectively fixed, and rights of flex over other operators are generally limited to 5 mins anyway, that leaves you very, very little to work with. If the 3tph timetable ultimately crosses trains at a busy LC it will be by chance not design. Hence why mitigation works are required.

Incidentally the business case will be heavily influenced by 12 and 13, as well as the overall journey times, and SLC franchise requirements for journey time and intervals. It's all very well coming up with a perfect pattern but if it has 30 min turnarounds at each end then it won't be resourcable.

Not to mention the pairing of all up and down services during the off peak at Wokingham level crossing and, possibly coincidentally, the pairing of up and down services at Farnborough North, where the barrow crossing is still in use.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think the route as a whole will be extremely difficult to plan 3tph if a requirement to cross trains at a specific place is added. There are already multiple major constraints;
1. Gatwick Airport platforming
2. Gatwick-Redhill paths
3. Redhill station working
4. Southern Reigate terminators
5. Gomshall long headways
6. Shalford Junction slots with SWT
7. Guildford station working
8. SWT Guildford-Ascot stoppers
9. Blackwater long headways (up to 12 mins)
10. Wokingham-Reading paths
11. Reading station working
12. Unit diagrams and turnarounds
13. Crewing

If you consider that 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are effectively fixed, and rights of flex over other operators are generally limited to 5 mins anyway, that leaves you very, very little to work with. If the 3tph timetable ultimately crosses trains at a busy LC it will be by chance not design. Hence why mitigation works are required.

Incidentally the business case will be heavily influenced by 12 and 13, as well as the overall journey times, and SLC franchise requirements for journey time and intervals. It's all very well coming up with a perfect pattern but if it has 30 min turnarounds at each end then it won't be resourcable.

If it is a franchise requirement, the business case should already have been made and approved. If vital elements were omitted (such as the apparent impossibility of running another train on a double track line which has level crossings!), then the franchise requirements will have to be changed if HMG won't meet the costs.

 

[Barn]

If it is a franchise requirement

Well it's definitely in the service specification (for May 2017). The only question is whether it is an absolute requirement or a 'reasonable endeavours' type requirement. Would have to read the franchise agreement itself to find that out.

 

[Barn]

Am I right in saying that the new paths have now been removed from opentraintimes?

 

[JonathanH]

Am I right in saying that the new paths have now been removed from opentraintimes?

Realtimetrains shows the current service running on after the May timetable change so I think it can be assumed that the change is not happening.

 

[Minstral25]

Last I heard the extra services will be in place in May 2018 as Platform 0 will not be available until then (NR is still building it) and I suspect GWR don't have extra units now because of electrification delays.

 

[infobleep]

Last I heard the extra services will be in place in May 2018 as Platform 0 will not be available until then (NR is still building it) and I suspect GWR don't have extra units now because of electrification delays.

Unless they find a solution to the level crossing issues quickly, I can't see it being Nay 2018.

 

[FenMan]

Unless they find a solution to the level crossing issues quickly, I can't see it being Nay 2018.

These are the level crossing issues that have emerged just 11 (eleven!) years after DfT mandated 2tph between Reading and Gatwick Airport when awarding the FGW franchise.

You cannot make this up.

Source that the 2tph Reading to Gatwick Airport requirement has been around since at least 2006:-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...VaPA2ECepTPojfLqUEYcjg&bvm=bv.149397726,d.cGw
(opens a Microsoft Word file).

 

[JonathanH]

These are the level crossing issues that have emerged just 11 (eleven!) years after DfT mandated 2tph between Reading and Gatwick Airport when awarding the FGW franchise.

You cannot make this up.

Source that the 2tph Reading to Gatwick Airport requirement has been around since at least 2006:-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...VaPA2ECepTPojfLqUEYcjg&bvm=bv.149397726,d.cGw
(opens a Microsoft Word file).

As explained further up the thread, tolerances of level crossing issues are more stringent than they were in 2006.

I assume that it is difficult to increase the quantum of services over any route that has busy level crossings - Waterloo to Reading springs to mind (although closure of the crossing at Feltham may count in its favour).

 

[swt_passenger]

The level crossing issues don't seem to me to have anything to do with 2 tph to Gatwick, surely that was all about platforms at Gatwick itself, and turnarounds at Redhill. Don't the apparent level crossing issues affect the 3 tph Reading to Redhill only?.

 

[JonathanH]

The level crossing issues don't seem to me to have anything to do with 2 tph to Gatwick, surely that was all about platforms at Gatwick itself, and turnarounds at Redhill. Don't the apparent level crossing issues affect the 3 tph Reading to Redhill only?.

Yes, but there is no point extending the stopping service to Gatwick because the two trains would basically follow each other between Redhill and Gatwick no more than 10 minutes apart. Slowing down the faster one wouldn't encourage passenger growth. Hence, you need 2tph at principal stations and a slower service.

First Great Western did consult in 2006 on the basis of a 2tph skip-stop timetable pattern (and allocated units for it) but it didn't happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, but there is no point extending the stopping service to Gatwick because the two trains would basically follow each other between Redhill and Gatwick no more than 10 minutes apart. Slowing down the faster one wouldn't encourage passenger growth. Hence, you need 2tph at principal stations and a slower service.

First Great Western did consult in 2006 on the basis of a 2tph skip-stop timetable pattern (and allocated units for it) but it didn't happen.

Thanks, that makes a clear explanation now - adding a third service moves the other two about as well.

 

[Deepgreen]

What an utter nonsense - the new platform at Redhill is well advanced. The prime reason for this investment was, I have been led to believe, the enhanced NDL service. If this is now 'impossible' owing the risk assessment of the level crossings on the route, what's happened to the business case for platform 0 at Redhill!? Running through treacle seems easy compared to this farce.

 

[infobleep]

What an utter nonsense - the new platform at Redhill is well advanced. The prime reason for this investment was, I have been led to believe, the enhanced NDL service. If this is now 'impossible' owing the risk assessment of the level crossings on the route, what's happened to the business case for platform 0 at Redhill!? Running through treacle seems easy compared to this farce.

I thought I read that was also for increased Thameslink services. Of course if NDL doesn't happen then that weakens the business case for Thameslink. Of course as it's started I doubt the business case for it matters any more.

 

[JonathanH]

What an utter nonsense - the new platform at Redhill is well advanced. The prime reason for this investment was, I have been led to believe, the enhanced NDL service. If this is now 'impossible' owing the risk assessment of the level crossings on the route, what's happened to the business case for platform 0 at Redhill!? Running through treacle seems easy compared to this farce.

Presumably still justified on the basis of less disruption when something goes wrong in platform 3. Even with the current operations, there are plenty of times when trains are held up outside the station with all platforms filled.

I can't imagine the work was justified solely on the basis of enhancement of the NDL service.

 

[Sunset route]

What an utter nonsense - the new platform at Redhill is well advanced. The prime reason for this investment was, I have been led to believe, the enhanced NDL service. If this is now 'impossible' owing the risk assessment of the level crossings on the route, what's happened to the business case for platform 0 at Redhill!? Running through treacle seems easy compared to this farce.

I say it again the extra platform was all about making the 2018 Thameslink TT robust what others get out of it are just fringe benefits. It was a very lively and frank dicussion at the meeting i attended where we had to agree to disagree.

 

[Minstral25]

These are the level crossing issues that have emerged just 11 (eleven!) years after DfT mandated 2tph between Reading and Gatwick Airport when awarding the FGW franchise.

You cannot make this up.

Source that the 2tph Reading to Gatwick Airport requirement has been around since at least 2006:-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...VaPA2ECepTPojfLqUEYcjg&bvm=bv.149397726,d.cGw
(opens a Microsoft Word file).

My understanding of the Level Crossing for the A217 at Reigate is that traffic has doubled in 10 years which means additional closures will now have a much larger affect on both the M25 and Reigate one-way system than when the 3 tph plan was put in place.

The Google Doc I believe refers to the 2006 plan extending the hourly Reading to Redhill service to Gatwick Airport (alongside the hourly Reading to Gatwick service) which Southern at the time refused as they needed spare capacity on the slows for when the Quarry line was blocked and space at Gatwick for terminating the expresses. Gatwick is now solved by adding platform 7.

 

[Minstral25]

I thought I read that was also for increased Thameslink services. Of course if NDL doesn't happen then that weakens the business case for Thameslink. Of course as it's started I doubt the business case for it matters any more.

Haha What enhanced Thameslink service.

At Redhill in 2012 it was 4 tph to London Bridge and 2tph to Victoria, plan for 2018 is still 2tph to Victoria but taking 12 minutes longer and 4 tph to London Bridge and Thameslink.

No enhancements whatever, despite promises in 2014 when cutting almost all our peak services to London Bridge that we would have a better service, it turns out 4 years of pain ends up with an even worse service.

 

[JonathanH]

Haha What enhanced Thameslink service.

At Redhill in 2012 it was 4 tph to London Bridge and 2tph to Victoria, plan for 2018 is still 2tph to Victoria but taking 12 minutes longer and 4 tph to London Bridge and Thameslink.

No enhancements whatever, despite promises in 2014 when cutting almost all our peak services to London Bridge that we would have a better service, it turns out 4 years of pain ends up with an even worse service.

6tph to London, hopefully evenly spaced instead of bunched into one part of each half hour and loads of additional (off-peak) capacity because of the longer trains that aren't full of passengers from the South Coast. Hopefully good connections at East Croydon for Victoria.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If the NDL does go 3tph eventually is there any scope to extended one service an hour at one or both ends and if there is, where would they most likely be extended to?

 

[JonathanH]

If the NDL does go 3tph eventually is there any scope to extended one service an hour at one or both ends and if there is, where would they most likely be extended to?

Gatwick end - no because there is no capacity to send the trains anywhere useful - the Brighton line is full of trains to London.

Reading end - unlikely although extension as the stopping trains between Reading and Oxford using the connection to the high numbered platforms at Reading is one post-Crossrail option for covering this service.

As the North Downs Line trains are likely to remain as 3-car trains extension at either end is not a good use of capacity on busy lines and it is better for the trains to remain a self-contained service.

 

[Minstral25]

6tph to London, hopefully evenly spaced instead of bunched into one part of each half hour and loads of additional (off-peak) capacity because of the longer trains that aren't full of passengers from the South Coast. Hopefully good connections at East Croydon for Victoria.

This is partially off-topic but I have to disagree

Evenly Spaced - it used to be that way
To Victoria in 2012 was xx:16 and xx:48 - 28 mins then 32
From Victoria it was xx:02 & xx:32 - exactly 30 mins gap

London Bridge was xx:07, xx:19, xx:37, xx:51
From LBG it was xx:03, xx:15, xx:33, xx:45
Both of which are fairly even and allows passengers to turn up and go

Yes in 2016 it is not that because of the diversion of half the London Bridge services to Blackfriars via Tulse Hill - one of the pains we have had to suffer to get the not improved timetable in 2018


The May 2018 proposal
As put forward at the public meeting in November and on the draft timetable was: -
Victoria every 30 minutes - still very even but journey time from 27 mins to 39 mins - a 40% increase
London Bridge - 10 mins then 20 mins which is very uneven and ruins the turn up and go aspect as you could have a 20 minute wait for the next one, 15 is the limit for turn up and go.

Reality is the plan doesn't appreciate that London Bridge and Victoria are completely different destinations as far as Redhill customers are concerned. You either go to one or the other not either.

So the concept of splitting the timetable evenly over both destinations is not valid and the proposed May 2018 timetable for Redhill is a terrible let down by GTR against their promises of improved services.

 

[Deepgreen]

I say it again the extra platform was all about making the 2018 Thameslink TT robust what others get out of it are just fringe benefits. It was a very lively and frank dicussion at the meeting i attended where we had to agree to disagree.

Possibly, but given that platform 1 is to become a south-facing bay, rather than a through platform, then what actually emerges in the new layout is really just a reversing platform for the GW trains, plus a little bit of extra flexibility for southbound trains to use a choice of three platforms with slightly fewer conflicts than before (and with the decision point having moved a little closer the station). I know we've been through the reasons (cost of associated signalling changes) for the half-baked change before, so I won't rehearse it again now.

 

[DelW]

Last I heard the extra services will be in place in May 2018 as Platform 0 will not be available until then (NR is still building it)

What an utter nonsense - the new platform at Redhill is well advanced

But platform 0 will be nowhere near ready for May this year - only two months away. Apart from anything else it will need new stairs and a lift either from ticket hall level or from subway level, as well as track and signalling changes once the platform structure is complete and the temporary wall can be removed.

 

[FenMan]

My understanding of the Level Crossing for the A217 at Reigate is that traffic has doubled in 10 years which means additional closures will now have a much larger affect on both the M25 and Reigate one-way system than when the 3 tph plan was put in place.

The Google Doc I believe refers to the 2006 plan extending the hourly Reading to Redhill service to Gatwick Airport (alongside the hourly Reading to Gatwick service) which Southern at the time refused as they needed spare capacity on the slows for when the Quarry line was blocked and space at Gatwick for terminating the expresses. Gatwick is now solved by adding platform 7.

I find it difficult to believe that traffic using Reigate crossing has doubled in the last 10 years when DfT statistics state that total vehicle miles in the UK have only increased by 3.2% since 2005.
Source (opens a PDF)

 

[Deepgreen]

I find it difficult to believe that traffic using Reigate crossing has doubled in the last 10 years when DfT statistics state that total vehicle miles in the UK have only increased by 3.2% since 2005.
Source (opens a PDF)

I expect there are local variations to that, but I must admit a 100% increase seems a lot. However I can attest that the traffic builds up hugely for even fairly brief crossing closures there. I think diversionary traffic from the M25 has increased here quite a lot too. Given the relative affluence of the area, I suspect that many young people have their own cars at a level which may be significantly above the national average.

 

[Deepgreen]

But platform 0 will be nowhere near ready for May this year - only two months away. Apart from anything else it will need new stairs and a lift either from ticket hall level or from subway level, as well as track and signalling changes once the platform structure is complete and the temporary wall can be removed.

Absolutely - my point has been that the platform works are proceeding apace (obviously to include access from the subway and a lift), however I don't think anyone had seriously thought May 2017 would see completion, but December could do, including the remaining track and signalling works (some of these have happened already). However, the level crossing issue on the NDL looks like scuppering any service increase for a long time to come.

 

[DelW]

I find it difficult to believe that traffic using Reigate crossing has doubled in the last 10 years when DfT statistics state that total vehicle miles in the UK have only increased by 3.2% since 2005.

When I started commuting to Redhill in 2006, I could usually get from the M25 roundabout to the turning into Raglan Road (about 1/2 mile before the level crossing) without much hold-up most mornings. Within a few years, the regular tail-back was well back up the hill toward the M25 junction, and on bad days went back round the roundabout itself. I now use a different route in the mornings, but it's regularly backed-up to the roundabout in the evening as well - that's around a 1.5 mile queue.

 

[JamesRowden]

If the NDL does go 3tph eventually is there any scope to extended one service an hour at one or both ends and if there is, where would they most likely be extended to?

In recent years I would have found a Reading to Tonbridge service very useful. Perhaps the service could run all the way to Dover. There's presently just 1tph Redhill-Tonbridge and 2tph Tonbridge-Ashford (of which 1tph runs to Dover)