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

[colchesterken]

Its called a COR unit big soft fully sprung seats. compartments where you can close the door....toilets where you can see the track going by under the train..mmmm those were the days

 

[cjmillsnun]

As someone who used to commute the route I agree. Capacity and standing was only an issue between Woking and London anyway. Passengers could quite easily find a seat during peak time as far as Guildford.

Not been the case for some times now. They can be full by Petersfield.

 

[Monkey Magic]

Just as an aside. There is another example to highlight my point about the stopping pattern,
What the h**l are Portsmouth Direct trains doing stopping at Worplesdon?
I've never heard of the place until recently and I've lived in the SE of England for over 40 years. My geography is pretty good to and I'm familiar with the Guildford area.

Worplesdon is a local commuter belt station that has no place being a stop on the Portsmouth trains.

I maybe wrong and I am sure someone will correct me but going back a few years.

So it used to be 1 train every 20 mins, but there was also a slow/semi-fast that started at Guildford that called at Worplesdon.

When they switched to every 15 mins but the semi-fast/slow started from Woking instead of Guildford, meaning that something else had to call at Worplesdon.

It only has 1tph.

I'd argue a more pointless stop is Clapham Junction - there are direct but slow trains from Guildford or change at Woking onto an Alton/Basingstoke semi-fast.

A 12 coach 444 would be good. Although loading/unloading can be slow and I wouldn't want to be waiting on the platform at Guildford for a 444 in the rush-hour with so few/narrow doors.

The problem with 3+2 is the number of over-weight commuters who sit with their legs spread apart. The VEPs were also bad for this was well.

If the SWT trains didn't smell quite so bad it would help.

That said, I am quite glad that I no longer have to ride in any CEPs or BEPs. They were some of the worst riding units I've ever travelled in.

South of Guildford I am fairly sure some trains used to split at Guildford. There was a service round 8.30 southbound that used to do this.

Also, the Alton-Basingstoke trains used to split at Woking (not sure you'd want to start splitting them there) or passengers from Alton-Basingstoke would want their trains to get shorter either.

 

[Aictos]

One solution is run more trains from Portsmouth via the 'new line' through Cobham, it reduces passenger numbers by removing the Woking stop and it reduces conflict on the flat junction at Woking. Trains could leave Guildford at their current times without conflicting with the 455s on the stopping services.

Also remember that the 444s were ordered for the Portsmouth line mostly and to supplement 442s on semi fast Wareham/Poole services.

What services currently go via Cobham both London bound and Portsmouth bound? Just asking as I've yet to go that way as I usually go via Woking on the Portsmouth Direct Line.

 

[TEW]

1G18 0642 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G22 0745 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G60 1715 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G55 1745 London Waterloo-Havant
1G57 1815 London Waterloo-Portsmouth & Southsea

They're all the booked fast services via Cobham. They're all 10-car 444s except 1G60, which is a 5-car 444 and 1G22 which is a 5-car between Portsmouth Harbour and Guildford, and a 10-car through to London Waterloo.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd argue a more pointless stop is Clapham Junction - there are direct but slow trains from Guildford or change at Woking onto an Alton/Basingstoke semi-fast.

Clapham Junction is a very popular stop, and it's only on the semi-fast Portsmouth & Southsea/Haslemere services anyway. It's one stop people are always moaning doesn't get enough calls. Changing at Woking on to Alton/Basingstoke services rarely works either, they leave Woking at xx22 and xx29, hardly an even service. The other 2 services an hour do not call at Clapham Junction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

South of Guildford I am fairly sure some trains used to split at Guildford. There was a service round 8.30 southbound that used to do this.

The 0800 London Waterloo-Portsmouth Harbour is a 10-car 444 with one unit detached at Guildford, which then attaches to the front of the 0745 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

1G18 0642 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G22 0745 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G60 1715 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G55 1745 London Waterloo-Havant
1G57 1815 London Waterloo-Portsmouth & Southsea

They're all the booked fast services via Cobham. They're all 10-car 444s except 1G60, which is a 5-car 444 and 1G22 which is a 5-car between Portsmouth Harbour and Guildford, and a 10-car through to London Waterloo.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clapham Junction is a very popular stop, and it's only on the semi-fast Portsmouth & Southsea/Haslemere services anyway. It's one stop people are always moaning doesn't get enough calls. Changing at Woking on to Alton/Basingstoke services rarely works either, they leave Woking at xx22 and xx29, hardly an even service. The other 2 services an hour do not call at Clapham Junction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 0800 London Waterloo-Portsmouth Harbour is a 10-car 444 with one unit detached at Guildford, which then attaches to the front of the 0745 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo.

Apart from 1G60 would them services be better off as 3x450 for maximum capacity (standing and seating)?

 

[infobleep]

There are no other services that pass through Worplesdon. All suburban style trains that there are from Guildford go via Effingham Junction.

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



Further main line train lengthening is already happening once the 707s are in service - but it will basically just be running all remaining current 8 car 450s (i.e. after the last 458/5s have arrived) as 12 car. Although that isn't in the too difficult pile, I'm fairly sure DD trains will be.

Anything more on top of that will require the 5th track from Surbiton, and possibly Woking grade separation. The latter is an option in the Waterloo capacity project, so at least it is being looked at.

There are two trains between 8am and 9am that passing through Worpolesden Nd are stopping services. The 8.20 misses out Worpolesden because the fast 8.15 stops there. The 8.46 does stop there.

There are people who live on the edge of Guildford towards Worplesdon. For them it I'd an easier station to get to. Parking is cheaper and you avoid the Guildford one way system and traffic which sometimes can be really bad.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1G18 0642 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G22 0745 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G60 1715 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo
1G55 1745 London Waterloo-Havant
1G57 1815 London Waterloo-Portsmouth & Southsea

They're all the booked fast services via Cobham. They're all 10-car 444s except 1G60, which is a 5-car 444 and 1G22 which is a 5-car between Portsmouth Harbour and Guildford, and a 10-car through to London Waterloo.

Why do more north bound trains go via Cobham than south bound services.

 

[TEW]

Apart from 1G60 would them services be better off as 3x450 for maximum capacity (standing and seating)?

I'd say they're all about right. As they avoid Woking they're all busy with standees, but not as busy as other services which call at Woking. One of the evening services was announced as going over to a 12-car 450 after the introduction of the 707s, I can't remember which one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do more north bound trains go via Cobham than south bound services.

Northbound trains have to cross the path of Southbound trains at Woking if they run via Woking, which is avoided by running via Cobham. Southbound it makes no difference, as the only conflict running both via Cobham and via Woking is with services on the Down Slow line.

 

[yorksrob]

Hasn't that route been 12 carriage since before electrification, in which case, if 8 carriage trains are routinely being run during the rush hour, surely that is the problem?

 

[RobShipway]

Hasn't that route been 12 carriage since before electrification, in which case, if 8 carriage trains are routinely being run during the rush hour, surely that is the problem?

12 coach class 450 trains have only been doing the Waterloo - Portsmouth route within the last couple of years I believe and before that it was 8 car 450 only.

However, I believe that back in the 1970's/1980's the trains where 12 car down to Portsmouth unless class 422's where being used where it was either 5 car or 10 car being used. But my memory could be wrong on that point.

 

[swt_passenger]

12 coach class 450 trains have only been doing the Waterloo - Portsmouth route within the last couple of years I believe and before that it was 8 car 450 only.

There were a few 12.450s on the route as far back as Dec 2007, shown in the CWNs of the time. Not as many as today, but 'the last couple of years' isn't really accurate for their first appearance.

 

[yorksrob]

12 coach class 450 trains have only been doing the Waterloo - Portsmouth route within the last couple of years I believe and before that it was 8 car 450 only.

However, I believe that back in the 1970's/1980's the trains where 12 car down to Portsmouth unless class 422's where being used where it was either 5 car or 10 car being used. But my memory could be wrong on that point.

Thanks. I'm sure I remember seeing CIG -BEP -CIG formations coming out of Waterloo during the 90's, which I assumed to be Portsmouth direct, but not having been travelling on them I can't be sure.

 

[TEW]

Hasn't that route been 12 carriage since before electrification, in which case, if 8 carriage trains are routinely being run during the rush hour, surely that is the problem?

In the morning the last 8-car service is the 0600 Haslemere-London Waterloo (0708 at Waterloo). Everything is then a 10 or 12 car until the 0729 Portsmouth Harbour-London Waterloo (0943 at Waterloo) which is a 5-car 444. In the evening peak the last 8-car service is the 1715 London Waterloo-Fratton, everything is then a 10 or 12-car until the 1915 London Waterloo-Southampton Central via Havant with the exception of the 1818 London Waterloo-Haslemere which is an 8-car 450.

 

[infobleep]

I'd say they're all about right. As they avoid Woking they're all busy with standees, but not as busy as other services which call at Woking. One of the evening services was announced as going over to a 12-car 450 after the introduction of the 707s, I can't remember which one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Northbound trains have to cross the path of Southbound trains at Woking if they run via Woking, which is avoided by running via Cobham. Southbound it makes no difference, as the only conflict running both via Cobham and via Woking is with services on the Down Slow line.

Thanks for that.

 

[bigdelboy]

If you look at the morning journey times from havant ... which have been creeping longer and longer and longer since the early BR days ... we currently have:

04:51 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 06:29 1h 38m
05:40 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 07:12 1h 32m
06:11 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 07:45 1h 34m
06:34 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 07:54 1h 20m
06:50 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 08:24 1h 34m
07:00 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 08:32 1h 32m
07:11 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 08:41 1h 30m
07:32 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 08:55 1h 23m
08:04 Havant [HAV] London Waterloo [WAT] 09:31 1h 27m

[ This misses out trains that get overtaken ]

The journey time of the 06:34 from havant makes it extremely attractive compared to anything else. And Therefore extremely busy. It is why it didn't even used to stop at guildford.

Any there is nothing earlier with a short journey time. The journey time doesn't issue too much from once one gets north of haslemere .... but it hurts south of there.

Well arguably there should be something faster earlier (when there is track capacity) to help spread the morning crush.

In some ways easier when all stock was 4 coach units and train lengths 4/8/12.

 

[jopsuk]

Used an off-peak 450 on Friday to Fareham. Train was far from busy, so crowding wasn't an issue. What was though is the lack of seat back tables or mini-tables in the bays. For off-peak use, at that distance, a layout more like the Class 365 would be much preferable

 

[Bletchleyite]

Used an off-peak 450 on Friday to Fareham. Train was far from busy, so crowding wasn't an issue. What was though is the lack of seat back tables or mini-tables in the bays. For off-peak use, at that distance, a layout more like the Class 365 would be much preferable

The 350/1 or 350/3 2+2 layout in would work fine as well, it is very popular with commuters on the WCML, and the positioning of the doors is not of all that much significance (even though I do really like 444s). But this tends to be killed by the PIXC requirements, which require more seats to be crammed in even if that results in people often choosing to ignore those seats (the middle of the 3).

 

[bramling]

The 350/1 or 350/3 2+2 layout in would work fine as well, it is very popular with commuters on the WCML, and the positioning of the doors is not of all that much significance (even though I do really like 444s). But this tends to be killed by the PIXC requirements, which require more seats to be crammed in even if that results in people often choosing to ignore those seats (the middle of the 3).

I agree in principle, however I don't believe that middle seats not being used happens as much in reality as it gets banded about on this forum. They may be the last to fill, and *some* people do choose to stand in preference, however on the class 317s and 321s out of King's Cross I can say for a fact that the middle seats *do* get used - even for relatively short journeys like Potters Bar to Finsbury Park (10 mins). I've seen the same with 450s on SWT (Waterloo to Basingstoke), and the various 2+3 class 150s on Northern.

Personally I'm torn on the 2+2/2+3 "debate". On a modestly loaded train, 2+3 offers advantages because it means some people won't be sitting next to someone that they would be if the train was 2+2. Also, you can fit 5 people in every "row" of facing seats before two people are having to sit opposite each other and rub knees. Or, you can have 4 people in a bay of 6 with still two spare seats in the middle - so none of the four are having so sit next to anyone, plus you have 2 seats for belongings; on a 2+2 train, all four would be crammed together, even on a train with good seat proportions this will be less pleasant than if they were in a 3+2 bay of 6.

Obviously once the train gets past about 60% loading then comfort levels decrease significantly -- but we're back to the same old issue that if lots of people choose to travel all at the same time, they have to accept that they're either going to get reduced levels of personal space/comfort, or perhaps have to stand. On balance, by a small margin I'd probably rather have 2+3 for the more spacious environment it brings *most* of the time.

 

[DelW]

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.

 

[RichardN]

These are suburban units with doors at 1/3 & 2/3

Why do people say this when the doors are much closer to the optimal 1/4 and 3/4?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why do people say this when the doors are much closer to the optimal 1/4 and 3/4?

Probably because it isn't necessary to be that accurate. The carriage is still divvied up into 3 parts after all - they're just different sizes.

 

[RichardN]

Probably because it isn't necessary to be that accurate. The carriage is still divvied up into 3 parts after all - they're just different sizes.

Well a 455 is 1/3, 2/3 based on my scientific window counting method... Can't agree a 450 is though.

 

[TEW]

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.

The Haslemere stoppers call additionally at Milford and Witley compared to the Portsmouth & Southsea stoppers, and are already very close to the fast services at Haslemere. If they were to call at Worplesdon in the down direction it would hold up the following fast service by a couple of minutes at Haslemere. The Portsmouth & Southsea stoppers have the extra time available to call at Worplesdon as a result of not calling at Milford and Witley.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Could easily be resolved by going back to the late 80's, early 90's, where the stoppers to Haslemere got looped at Guildford, where the fast drew in alongside the stopper and cleared off and had a good fast run to the coast, now it's a pathetically slow timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously once the train gets past about 60% loading then comfort levels decrease significantly -- but we're back to the same old issue that if lots of people choose to travel all at the same time, they have to accept that they're either going to get reduced levels of personal space/comfort, or perhaps have to stand. On balance, by a small margin I'd probably rather have 2+3 for the more spacious environment it brings *most* of the time.

I'm guessing you're quite skinny? For those of us who are a bit bigger, 3+2 is rubbish at all times because we end up sitting oddly on the contoured bit of the seat, forced not to sit straight by the seat being jammed against the window with no gap nor armrest. Or, if in the aisle, we stick out so people clout us on the way past down the unacceptably narrow aisle. I would agree if we were talking about simple bench seating, but not that on 350s and 450s.

Personally I would abolish 3+2 seating entirely and design trains so there is better standing space for very busy times.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm guessing you're quite skinny? For those of us who are a bit bigger, 3+2 is rubbish at all times because we end up sitting oddly on the contoured bit of the seat, forced not to sit straight by the seat being jammed against the window with no gap nor armrest. Or, if in the aisle, we stick out so people clout us on the way past down the unacceptably narrow aisle. I would agree if we were talking about simple bench seating, but not that on 350s and 450s.

Personally I would abolish 3+2 seating entirely and design trains so there is better standing space for very busy times.

On pre-VEP stock (EPB's, HAP's, Thumpers), there wasn't a ridge between individual seats, so at less busy times 3+2 seating effectively became a more luxurious 1+2 for people.

That said, I don't recall being unduly bothered by the ridge on VEP seats, but it might have been a better idea not to have included it in the design.

Personally, I've never been convinced about the vast increase in capacity supposedly engendered by lack of seating.

 

[broadgage]

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 !

 

[bigdelboy]

A couple more features:

The trains on the Pompey direct to Waterloo fill faster at the front rather than the rear. So one can often and easily have standing at the front while there is still plently of seating in the rear. Regulars tend to know this and know how far back they will *usually* need to get on to have a seat.

Another issue with 3+2 as opposed to 2+2 is from once people end up standing then it is far harder to get by the narrower 3+2 aisle than a 2+2 one. And less chance to make it to the back where there *might* be seats.

And if it wasn't for the reliability in my opinion 377's (with 2+2 or mixed 2+2 and 3+2) would be a better bet for for the Portsmouth Direct; what with there faster door close etc.

 

[Bevan Price]

Its called a COR unit big soft fully sprung seats. compartments where you can close the door....toilets where you can see the track going by under the train..mmmm those were the days

Agreed. An updated 4 COR unit, meeting current vehicle crash standards, but with 4-COR internal layout would be ideal for most journeys exceeding about 1 hour, although I preferred the "open second" coaches to compartment stock.

 

[bigdelboy]

Agreed. An updated 4 COR unit, meeting current vehicle crash standards, but with 4-COR internal layout would be ideal for most journeys exceeding about 1 hour, although I preferred the "open second" coaches to compartment stock.

Not to mention heavyweight shoes that didnt give up or weld themselves to a rail like a 442 or 450/444/377. Well I remember an early morning train in the early nineties that was a 442 until the snow/ice got bad .... the 442's got ditched for some 4-cep's and those 4-ceps never left ... to be joined by many others...