Could a train be built for Portsmouth to Waterloo services that commuters like?

[AM9]

I doubt that commuters can ever be Fully satisfied, but a good approach to satisfaction could be achieved by,

2+2 seating in standard
2+1 seating in first
A long enough train that no one needs to stand, even in the peak, except between Woking and Waterloo.
At least half of the seats being facing across tables.
Leg room at least as good as on a Wessex electric.
A bar and buffet, as was provided on the Wessex electrics, pre the downgrade. to inner suburban stock.

All of this is achievable EXCEPT for enough capacity, that can only be provided by trains longer than the present infrastructure can handle, or by a more frequent service than paths exist for.

Ultimately, despite the expense and disruption, capacity into Waterloo is going to need very substantially increasing.
Small scale tinkering to compress a few more people onto each train has gone as far as it realistically can.
Radical action is needed to allow for 15/16 car trains on the busiest routes. Something broadly similar in internal design to the Wessex electrics is needed, but 15 or 16 vehicles long.

With a rapidly growing population, it wont take long for such long trains to be overcrowded !

So as I said earlier in this post, it would seem that a 2+2 seating arrangement that gives significant comfortable standing room will in future be the type of train used on lines like the Portsmouth Direct when all paths are filled with maximum length trains and passenger growth still demands more capacity. Siemens already have a design that gives just that, the Desiro City which with slight commuter comfort frippery could meet the requirement. If a train is being introduced into service on a line where considerable standing is expected, 2x2 seats will need to be narrow enough to allow standees to circulate and equalise the crowding. Those lucky enough to have seats will effectively sacrifice some seat width to give those standees some comfort.
I imagine that at some point, DfT will recognise when a line's timetable saturates and direct the TOC to prioritise comfortable and safe standing at the expense of middle seats. The political fall-out of leaving passengers at the station is far worse than giving standees more room to stand instead of not enough high-density seats that some have been moaning about since the '60s.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So as I said earlier in this post, it would seem that a 2+2 seating arrangement that gives significant comfortable standing room will in future be the type of train used on lines like the Portsmouth Direct when all paths are filled with maximum length trains and passenger growth still demands more capacity. Siemens already have a design that gives just that, the Desiro City which with slight commuter comfort frippery could meet the requirement. If a train is being introduced into service on a line where considerable standing is expected, 2x2 seats will need to be narrow enough to allow standees to circulate and equalise the crowding. Those lucky enough to have seats will effectively sacrifice some seat width to give those standees some comfort.
I imagine that at some point, DfT will recognise when a line's timetable saturates and direct the TOC to prioritise comfortable and safe standing at the expense of middle seats. The political fall-out of leaving passengers at the station is far worse than giving standees more room to stand instead of not enough high-density seats that some have been moaning about since the '60s.

I've got a solution to no more broken toilets, no more moaning, bitching & whinging about broken air conditioning etc, by Surrey & SW London commuters.

 

[Bevan Price]

I doubt that commuters can ever be Fully satisfied, but a good approach to satisfaction could be achieved by,

2+2 seating in standard
2+1 seating in first
A long enough train that no one needs to stand, even in the peak, except between Woking and Waterloo.
At least half of the seats being facing across tables.
Leg room at least as good as on a Wessex electric.
A bar and buffet, as was provided on the Wessex electrics, pre the downgrade. to inner suburban stock.

All of this is achievable EXCEPT for enough capacity, that can only be provided by trains longer than the present infrastructure can handle, or by a more frequent service than paths exist for.

Ultimately, despite the expense and disruption, capacity into Waterloo is going to need very substantially increasing.
Small scale tinkering to compress a few more people onto each train has gone as far as it realistically can.
Radical action is needed to allow for 15/16 car trains on the busiest routes. Something broadly similar in internal design to the Wessex electrics is needed, but 15 or 16 vehicles long.

With a rapidly growing population, it wont take long for such long trains to be overcrowded !

At that stage, the best solution would be a completely new line, serving only the major towns / cities.

 

[67018]

I've got a solution to no more broken toilets, no more moaning, bitching & whinging about broken air conditioning etc, by Surrey & SW London commuters.

Nice one - but does it have Wi-Fi?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

It'll be wiffy with no toilets, but none of the magical Wi-Fi.

 

[swt_passenger]

It'll be wiffy with no toilets, but none of the magical Wi-Fi.

You'll get a better 'normal' phone signal than on a Voyager though...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Someone mentioned in a thread that Desiros are a little narrower then some trains, how much longer and wider could the trains for the Portsmouth line be made before they would either start fouling stuff or not be able to get round some of the sharper bends?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

444's are wider, 450's are narrower from what I recall.

 

[jopsuk]

450s are the wider units- like almost all ~20m carriages they're ~2.8m wide. 444s are a little narrower- like most ~23m carriages* they're ~2.7m wide. Wider units would require structural alterations throughout



*except the Networker Turbos and the 323s

 

[broadgage]

I can not agree with those who suggest that the only answer to growing passenger numbers is ever more standing for ever longer journeys.

Longer or more frequent trains are needed. In some cases this simply means the purchase or leasing of more rolling stock.
In many cases though longer trains will be needed, despite the expense and disruption of platform lengthening to accommodate these longer trains.

Alternatively, a more frequent service could accommodate the substantial increase in passenger numbers, this will probably require either a new route, or additional tracks along existing routes.

We cant carry on forever with rail infrastructure intended for the needs of a century ago.

An extra track between Waterloo and New Malden (where traffic thins out a bit as the Kingston lines diverge) would help a lot, and has been TALKED about for decades.
Making full use of the long platforms at Waterloo International would help a lot and has been TALKED about for years.
Consider the huge crowds that could be shifted by building a flyover at Waterloo so that extra long trains from the former international platforms could access the main lines.
This would not require any extra paths in the congested inner area, trains could run to a similar timetable as at present, but with some rush hour services being 20 car* to say Basingstoke with either two 10 car portions continuing to different destinations, or even the rear 10 being detached at Basingstoke to cater for the substantial demand to that place.

*or whatever is the maximum possible train length that the former international platforms can take.

 

[NSEFAN]

I can not agree with those who suggest that the only answer to growing passenger numbers is ever more standing for ever longer journeys.

Longer or more frequent trains are needed. In some cases this simply means the purchase or leasing of more rolling stock.
In many cases though longer trains will be needed, despite the expense and disruption of platform lengthening to accommodate these longer trains.

Alternatively, a more frequent service could accommodate the substantial increase in passenger numbers, this will probably require either a new route, or additional tracks along existing routes.

We cant carry on forever with rail infrastructure intended for the needs of a century ago.

An extra track between Waterloo and New Malden (where traffic thins out a bit as the Kingston lines diverge) would help a lot, and has been TALKED about for decades.
Making full use of the long platforms at Waterloo International would help a lot and has been TALKED about for years.
Consider the huge crowds that could be shifted by building a flyover at Waterloo so that extra long trains from the former international platforms could access the main lines.
This would not require any extra paths in the congested inner area, trains could run to a similar timetable as at present, but with some rush hour services being 20 car* to say Basingstoke with either two 10 car portions continuing to different destinations, or even the rear 10 being detached at Basingstoke to cater for the substantial demand to that place.

*or whatever is the maximum possible train length that the former international platforms can take.

Regarding Waterloo, it's not quite as straightforward as running 20 coach trains from the international platforms.

International junction and indeed the platforms themselves are configured to work best from the Windsor lines. Swinging across to the Wimbledon lines would eat up capacity, especially with such long trains!

Platform lengths away from from Waterloo International are nowhere near enough for 20 cars. In some cases you could maybe extend to 13 or 14 cars with minimal effort, but you really don't want to do this at all. Trains longer than 12 cars take longer and require more man power to dispatch. You also then have worsened the problem of one end of the train having unused space, because fewer people can be bothered to walk the full length of the train before deciding "it's full".

Having stock for such crowd buster trains in the peaks doesn't sit well with the accountants and the government would do everything possible to avoid funding such things. This is why stock with more standing room is currently seen as the way forward. Infrastructure is extremely expensive and requires very wise spending, so I think it's understandable to try and get every last penny out of the previous investments made.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I can not agree with those who suggest that the only answer to growing passenger numbers is ever more standing for ever longer journeys.

Longer or more frequent trains are needed. In some cases this simply means the purchase or leasing of more rolling stock.
In many cases though longer trains will be needed, despite the expense and disruption of platform lengthening to accommodate these longer trains.

Alternatively, a more frequent service could accommodate the substantial increase in passenger numbers, this will probably require either a new route, or additional tracks along existing routes.

We cant carry on forever with rail infrastructure intended for the needs of a century ago.

An extra track between Waterloo and New Malden (where traffic thins out a bit as the Kingston lines diverge) would help a lot, and has been TALKED about for decades.
Making full use of the long platforms at Waterloo International would help a lot and has been TALKED about for years.
Consider the huge crowds that could be shifted by building a flyover at Waterloo so that extra long trains from the former international platforms could access the main lines.
This would not require any extra paths in the congested inner area, trains could run to a similar timetable as at present, but with some rush hour services being 20 car* to say Basingstoke with either two 10 car portions continuing to different destinations, or even the rear 10 being detached at Basingstoke to cater for the substantial demand to that place.

*or whatever is the maximum possible train length that the former international platforms can take.

Sorry, but there's more waffle here than in Bird's Eyes frozen food factory.

 

[bigdelboy]

What used to be done twenty of so years ago was to not stop at Pompey Fasts at woking encouraging woking people to Pompey slows which are typically less packed.

The popular 6.37 from havant (now 6.34) didn't even used to stop at guildford ... let alone woking.

It's a bit difficult for those who really need to change at woking, or going to Surbiton for example.

For Down Trains you're trying to avoid Woking passengers who have a choice of many trains, some of which are more lightly loaded, occupying seats on busy trains in place of longer distance travellers who have no choice.

I know the timetable isn't that easy to tweak though ... and that would give winners and losers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Regarding Waterloo, it's not quite as straightforward as running 20 coach trains from the international platforms.

International junction and indeed the platforms themselves are configured to work best from the Windsor lines. Swinging across to the Wimbledon lines would eat up capacity, especially with such long trains!

Platform lengths away from from Waterloo International are nowhere near enough for 20 cars. In some cases you could maybe extend to 13 or 14 cars with minimal effort, but you really don't want to do this at all. Trains longer than 12 cars take longer and require more man power to dispatch. You also then have worsened the problem of one end of the train having unused space, because fewer people can be bothered to walk the full length of the train before deciding "it's full".

Having stock for such crowd buster trains in the peaks doesn't sit well with the accountants and the government would do everything possible to avoid funding such things. This is why stock with more standing room is currently seen as the way forward. Infrastructure is extremely expensive and requires very wise spending, so I think it's understandable to try and get every last penny out of the previous investments made.

Could the 3rd rail even provide the extra juice needed for trains longer then 12 cars?

 

[broadgage]

In the immediate Waterloo area, sufficient traction current should be available since it sufficed for the long and power hungry Eurostars.
Farther out it is likely that upgrades will be needed to cope with longer or more frequent trains.

This will be expensive, but I say again that a rapidly growing population needs more infrastructure and that we cant carry on forever with infrastructure sized for the needs of a 100 years ago.

 

[AM9]

Could the 3rd rail even provide the extra juice needed for trains longer then 12 cars?

And given that the signalling on the SWML is set up for a maximum of 12 cars, attempts to run anything like 16-car trains would lose paths. It may also need the relocation of crossovers.
Upgrading the capabilty of the inefficient DC system shouldn't be done. The only way is to fix that bit permanently by converting to 25kV OLE. All the regular stock on the Portsmouth direct and via Eastleigh is ac convertible. Longer trains is another one of those daft ideas like double-deck stock running through current structure gauge stations. There is no cheap fix.
Any real increase in mainline capacity can only be provided by serious capital investment in infrastructure made even more expensive by Surrey and Hants. land costs. If that was ever to be considered, it would take passing loops at nearly every station down the line, major straightening of the bends south of Buriton (the speed limit through the tunnel could be lifted when it is opened up for OLE), and flying junctions at Woking and Havant. Despite the line runninmg through safe Tory constituencies, I'd put money on more attention being given by them to the needs of the North's inadequate infrastructure. So trains, either with better provision for standing or high density seating as at present, is all that commuters can expect for the next 15-20 years.

 

[swt_passenger]

An extra track between Waterloo and New Malden (where traffic thins out a bit as the Kingston lines diverge) would help a lot, and has been TALKED about for decades.

The likeliest solution - and in progress in CP5. What they call 'capacity interventions' at Clapham Junction is the start of 5th tracking towards Waterloo.

Making full use of the long platforms at Waterloo International would help a lot and has been TALKED about for years.

They are going to move the entire Windsor lines service group into the international al platforms during CP5

Consider the huge crowds that could be shifted by building a flyover at Waterloo so that extra long trains from the former international platforms could access the main lines.
This would not require any extra paths in the congested inner area, trains could run to a similar timetable as at present, but with some rush hour services being 20 car* to say Basingstoke with either two 10 car portions continuing to different destinations, or even the rear 10 being detached at Basingstoke to cater for the substantial demand to that place.

London and SE RUS recommendation F3 but will not be done. Not carried forward into current route study:

"Detailed analysis has indicated that only a limited number of 16-car
trains would be viable, even with major infrastructure works in the
Clapham Junction area for a grade-separated junction from the
main SWML tracks into the former London Waterloo International
Platforms. The additional capacity provided would therefore be
insufficient to resolve the gap.
This option is therefore not recommended due to high cost and not
providing sufficient additional capacity."

 

[67018]

And given that the signalling on the SWML is set up for a maximum of 12 cars, attempts to run anything like 16-car trains would lose paths. It may also need the relocation of crossovers.
Upgrading the capabilty of the inefficient DC system shouldn't be done. The only way is to fix that bit permanently by converting to 25kV OLE. All the regular stock on the Portsmouth direct and via Eastleigh is ac convertible. Longer trains is another one of those daft ideas like double-deck stock running through current structure gauge stations. There is no cheap fix.
Any real increase in mainline capacity can only be provided by serious capital investment in infrastructure made even more expensive by Surrey and Hants. land costs. If that was ever to be considered, it would take passing loops at nearly every station down the line, major straightening of the bends south of Buriton (the speed limit through the tunnel could be lifted when it is opened up for OLE), and flying junctions at Woking and Havant. Despite the line runninmg through safe Tory constituencies, I'd put money on more attention being given by them to the needs of the North's inadequate infrastructure. So trains, either with better provision for standing or high density seating as at present, is all that commuters can expect for the next 15-20 years.

Does anyone, anywhere in the world, regularly use trains longer than 12 cars on intensive commuter services? (Genuine question). It seems to me that, beyond that length, you get rapidly into diminishing returns as signal spacing, amount of time to clear junctions etc. mean most likely that fewer trains can run. And as mentioned, people tend to cluster at one end of the train anyway.

So there's a risk of massive expenditure to achieve not much extra capacity. Sounds like the targetted infrastructure investments mentioned above would make more sense, unless we want to knock the whole lot down and rebuild it for double deck trains or build a whole new line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could the 3rd rail even provide the extra juice needed for trains longer then 12 cars?

Yes. If any particular capacity intervention needs additional power they'll provide it by strengthening existing DC power supplies. That's what they'll be doing for 10 car to Reading, and are already doing for other ongoing 'longer train' projects in the former SR. There are a few power supply improvements under way at the moment, all shown in the CP5 enhancement plans as normal, Kent, Sussex and Wessex areas all have them to reflect higher frequencies and longer trains, I don't see any signs of this progress suddenly being stopped any time soon.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Someone mentioned in a thread that Desiros are a little narrower then some trains, how much longer and wider could the trains for the Portsmouth line be made before they would either start fouling stuff or not be able to get round some of the sharper bends?

444s (and IIRC 185s) are slightly narrower than the more common 20m models such as 450 and 350 - basically to allow them to be 23m long, but that's all. Longer again either means narrower bodies overall or to have same width means infrastructure improvements would be necessary.

444s are already 'infrastructure limited' on the Portsmouth route compared to 450s, hence the speed restriction at Buriton tunnel that has been mentioned.

 

[jopsuk]

20 car* to say Basingstoke with either two 10 car portions continuing to different destinations, or even the rear 10 being detached at Basingstoke to cater for the substantial demand to that place.

*or whatever is the maximum possible train length that the former international platforms can take.

I think the International platforms can handle a 400m train- a long standing UIC TSI for the maximum length of a high speed train (HS1 is being built to handle 400m max trains as well). 20 carriages of class 444 would likely overhang the end of the platforms probably fouling the signalling and points.

15 carriages (345 metres) would be longer than the signalling sections are set up to handle at speed, effectively reducing capacity.

Fundamentally, the signalling, timetabling, platforms etc are optimised for trains less than 250m long (I think this might be another UIC standard- for non high speed lines?). It's certainly the length of new platforms elsewhere (eg at Cambridge) that have been built for "12 car" (based on 20m carriages) operation.

There's many things one could theoretically do to increase the capacity at Waterloo. Sadly, these quickly approach "fundamentally rebuild the entire railway with more flyovers, more tracks and to UIC GC+ gauge", something that would be enormously expensive and involve lengthy closures.

 

[infobleep]

What used to be done twenty of so years ago was to not stop at Pompey Fasts at woking encouraging woking people to Pompey slows which are typically less packed.

The popular 6.37 from havant (now 6.34) didn't even used to stop at guildford ... let alone woking.

It's a bit difficult for those who really need to change at woking, or going to Surbiton for example.

For Down Trains you're trying to avoid Woking passengers who have a choice of many trains, some of which are more lightly loaded, occupying seats on busy trains in place of longer distance travellers who have no choice.

I know the timetable isn't that easy to tweak though ... and that would give winners and losers.

The 18.39 Waterloo to Poole is an example of a train Woking passengers get at the expense of others. At Clapham Junction people usually end up having to stand. It is the connecting service for those which to go to Guildford or stations south of there.

However it would be impossible to stop Woking passengers boarding it at Waterloo so the status quo will remain for some years yet. Although train lengthening, if as I believe is happening, that service gets lengthened to 8 carriages from 5.

 

[fowler9]

Massive capital investment in changing the loading gauge, the track and station layout for longer trains or just changing the way we live so less people have to commute so far are the only solutions I can think of. With current constraints things are only going to get worse, simple as that in my opinion. It is pretty much impossible to design a train that takes up the same amount of space that will provide comfort for everyone that needs to use it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Relief may be on the way in the form of ETCS, which in theory will allow a higher frequency to operate. Whether this will do any more than maintain current levels of crowding however is open to debate...

 

[The Ham]

Once Crossrail 2 is operational (assuming it goes ahead) then there could be scope to increase the number of services once other infrastructure is built (i.e. removing of flat junction at Woking). Even if only a few services run all the way out to the outer ends of the network just by running new semi fast services (two or three stops) to places like Woking, Basingstoke and Guildford it would reduce the pressure on the longer distance services.

 

[blotred]

Does anyone, anywhere in the world, regularly use trains longer than 12 cars on intensive commuter services? (Genuine question).

Yeah, in Tokyo.
For example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/E233-3000_tokaido_main_line.JPG

I remember taking one on the Takasaki(?) line.

 

[Wolfie]

In BR days 12 coaches was the norm on fast(er) trains, CIG/BIG/CIG then CIG/BEP/CIG, some stoppers used VEPs. These mk1s were replaced by usually 10-car 444s which were popular as mentioned above. Then SWT ditched the Wessexes, pinched the 444s to replace them, and gave the Portsmouth Direct 8-car 450s
These are suburban units with doors at 1/3 & 2/3 and very hard uncomfortable (as well as cramped) seats. I usually have no trouble with seating on trains, but there are times in a full 450 when the seats become so uncomfortable I have to stand to ease my back. As a comparison, first class seating in the 450s is virtually identical to standard class in the 444s.

It really bugs me that at weekends, when there is surely no shortage of 444s, the Portsmouth trains are still 450s -and even more annoying when SWML locals are 444s.

Finally, at Worplesdon, I have never understood why this isn't served by the Haslemere short workings rather than the Portsmouth stoppers. They lay over for some time at Haslemere, so there shoudn't be any problem adding Worplesdon stops.

My bold

Genuine question: How long was each carriage in those 12 car trains of old? Certainly on other threads it has been pointed out that modern rolling stock tends to be longer such that a modern 10 car train provides much more accomodation than an old 12 car train....

 

[swt_passenger]

Genuine question: How long was each carriage in those 12 car trains of old? Certainly on other threads it has been pointed out that modern rolling stock tends to be longer such that a modern 10 car train provides much more accomodation than an old 12 car train....

The last Mark 1 based EMUs in use were all based on nominally 66ft/20m vehicles. Where a platform on the Weymouth or Portsmouth routes was showing a 12 car marker it meant 240m AFAICT, so a 12 car VEP or CIG etc would be about the same overall length to within a metre or so as a 12 car 450 or 377.

Or did you mean earlier generations of EMU stock to Mk 1s though?

 

[Wolfie]

The last Mark 1 based EMUs in use were all based on nominally 66ft/20m vehicles. Where a platform on the Weymouth or Portsmouth routes was showing a 12 car marker it meant 240m AFAICT, so a 12 car VEP or CIG etc would be about the same overall length to within a metre or so as a 12 car 450 or 377.

Or did you mean earlier generations of EMU stock to Mk 1s though?

I'm not truthfully sure - I was considering Del's comment. Ta by the way...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The last Mark 1 based EMUs in use were all based on nominally 66ft/20m vehicles.

It's heritage DMUs which were 60ft/18m.

 

[jopsuk]

Yeah, in Tokyo.
For example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/E233-3000_tokaido_main_line.JPG

I remember taking one on the Takasaki(?) line.

But then that's quite a different concept of train in so many ways- mixing carriages that are mainly single decker, longitudinal seating with four sets of doors per carriage with a couple of double decker, end doors only, first class carriages.