Could battery powered trains operate Guildford to London Bridge via North Downs?

[Peter Sarf]

Is this possibly what the route suffers from. Passes through three separate TOCs areas. No real generator of traffic in its own right.

If it is electrified DC then FGW will not want it as they probably will not want to support a few DC EMUs. It leaves the FGW network straight away anyway. If its AC then Southern would still be interested as they have dual voltage 377/2s and 377/7s already. Depends if through services to London are planned. Seems most likely progress is DC as it adds to what is already there. Battery EMUs become useful if only parts are electrified which might be easier to progress regardless of the long term best option.

In other threads but to clarify. AC conversion of the DC network is going to be a long way off as you cannot have both overlapping. All the trains, that are likely to use the AC part, will have to be dual voltage. There are expensive solutions for having both third rail DC and overhead AC on the same tracks that are only worth doing in a few small areas where trains switch from AC to/from DC.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Is this possibly what the route suffers from. Passes through three separate TOCs areas. No real generator of traffic in its own right.

If it is electrified DC then FGW will not want it as they probably will not want to support a few DC EMUs. It leaves the FGW network straight away anyway. If its AC then Southern would still be interested as they have dual voltage 377/2s and 377/7s already. Depends if through services to London are planned. Seems most likely progress is DC as it adds to what is already there. Battery EMUs become useful if only parts are electrified which might be easier to progress regardless of the long term best option.

In other threads but to clarify. AC conversion of the DC network is going to be a long way off as you cannot have both overlapping. All the trains, that are likely to use the AC part, will have to be dual voltage. There are expensive solutions for having both third rail DC and overhead AC on the same tracks that are only worth doing in a few small areas where trains switch from AC to/from DC.

Err. Yes you can Farringdon has both IIRC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could the Reading-Redhills be combined with the Reigate-London Victorias, with a separate Reading-Gatwick and be transferred to Southern? I know this has been discussed before as in transferring these services away from GW but in this case would it make sense?

Why transfer it to SN? SN have a poor reputation for punctuality due to the combining & dividing of services. GW is known a Godknows When because their punctuality & reliability is just as poor as SN, so it (NDL) should be removed from their franchise.

As I've said it would be far better to transfer it to SW & future incumbents, because:

1. SW drivers have far more DMU experience than SN and they already work over it with the RHTT's.

2. Wessex region will be controlling 90% of the route from Basingstoke ROC, Three Bridges will only control from Reigate, possibly Gomshall at a push.

3. The NDL is almost fully within the SW network area, removing it from GW & not giving it to SN, eliminates at least 2 TOC on TOC delay interfaces.

4. You have a depot at Guildford. It's dead centre, it would eliminate the amount of "passing" by SN train crew to/from Reading.

5. 450 & 444 are both capable of being converted to dual voltage use.

6. The battery technology isn't up to it and using a battery powered electrostar is asking for trouble as it brings another form of traction into the equation and it, risks bringing trains with incompatible couplers & computers into both Guildford & Reading.

7. Bringing the NDL into the SW franchise opens up the opportunity to link Gatwick with Heathrow, without introducing another operator, as the Southern periphery of Heathrow is bordered by SW.

 

[swt_passenger]

Err. Yes you can Farringdon has both IIRC.

That's exactly the point the previous poster was making though. Farringdon is the north end of a particularly expensive solution with a highly complex dual electrified changeover section, that now runs between two stations including City Thameslink; but it is not a typical example of the normal dual electrified length for changeover purposes, and it is not usual to have significant distances fitted with both supplies, which is I think what he meant by 'overlapping'...

 

[TheWalrus]

Err. Yes you can Farringdon has both IIRC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why transfer it to SN? SN have a poor reputation for punctuality due to the combining & dividing of services. GW is known a Godknows When because their punctuality & reliability is just as poor as SN, so it (NDL) should be removed from their franchise.

As I've said it would be far better to transfer it to SW & future incumbents, because:

1. SW drivers have far more DMU experience than SN and they already work over it with the RHTT's.

2. Wessex region will be controlling 90% of the route from Basingstoke ROC, Three Bridges will only control from Reigate, possibly Gomshall at a push.

3. The NDL is almost fully within the SW network area, removing it from GW & not giving it to SN, eliminates at least 2 TOC on TOC delay interfaces.

4. You have a depot at Guildford. It's dead centre, it would eliminate the amount of "passing" by SN train crew to/from Reading.

5. 450 & 444 are both capable of being converted to dual voltage use.

6. The battery technology isn't up to it and using a battery powered electrostar is asking for trouble as it brings another form of traction into the equation and it, risks bringing trains with incompatible couplers & computers into both Guildford & Reading.

7. Bringing the NDL into the SW franchise opens up the opportunity to link Gatwick with Heathrow, without introducing another operator, as the Southern periphery of Heathrow is bordered by SW.

Some good points in there. If the Reading-Gatwicks were extended to/from Basingstoke it would make sense to transfer to SW. However it would make more sense to go to SN if the Reading-Redhills went to London Bridge or Victoria. Alternatively if they the Gatwicks were extended to Oxford or even Newbury it would be better to stay with GW, unless we wanted to end up with 3 operators between Reading and Oxford!

If the Reading-Gatwick services were to stay self-contained then it would make sense to be operated by SW.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

IF & that's a BIG IF, you wanted to do that then you could say extend them not to Reading, but send them back to Victoria or London Bridge via Effingham.

So you'd have a VIC-VIC via Sutton, Effingham, Guildford, Redhill & back to either of the London Termini.

But bringing SN into the equation is a bad thing because you're introducing the possibility of another TOC on TOC delay, this is something that they now try to avoid at all costs.

If the electric spine ever comes into existence, then there's the possibility of Gatwick to Basingstoke & Newbury/Oxford (and beyond should they ever decide to extend the wires to Westbury or Taunton). Or even onto the East-West line to Milton Keynes.

Again the problem with that is you're opening it up to another TOC on TOC delay! Keep it within the SW franchise and you only have 1 TOC on TOC interface & that's at Redhill. That should be alleviated to a degree with Platform 0 at Redhill.

 

[infobleep]

Some good points in there. If the Reading-Gatwicks were extended to/from Basingstoke it would make sense to transfer to SW. However it would make more sense to go to SN if the Reading-Redhills went to London Bridge or Victoria. Alternatively if they the Gatwicks were extended to Oxford or even Newbury it would be better to stay with GW, unless we wanted to end up with 3 operators between Reading and Oxford!

If the Reading-Gatwick services were to stay self-contained then it would make sense to be operated by SW.

Well Guildford currently has SWT, Cross Country Trains, SN and FGW so that 4 TOCs. Admittedly some pass through far less frequently than others.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Well Guildford currently has SWT, Cross Country Trains, SN and FGW so that 4 TOCs. Admittedly some pass through far less frequently than others.

The only regulars on that list are FGW, XC's single and rather pathetic waste of time daily service disappears at the merest sniff of a problem & starts at Reading.

SN are regular late runners and on a fairly frequent basis terminate on their own patch.

GW have their days, in fact that can be said to be most days, where they regularly run late and knock SWT mainline services. Eliminate GW from the mainline clashes, then you're down to just SW. SN doesn't affect mainline services as it only uses the Newline.

 

[infobleep]

The only regulars on that list are FGW, XC's single and rather pathetic waste of time daily service disappears at the merest sniff of a problem & starts at Reading.

SN are regular late runners and on a fairly frequent basis terminate on their own patch.

GW have their days, in fact that can be said to be most days, where they regularly run late and knock SWT mainline services. Eliminate GW from the mainline clashes, then you're down to just SW. SN doesn't affect mainline services as it only uses the Newline.

Which means SN could affect SWT services on the new line but I don't notice that happening much.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Which means SN could affect SWT services on the new line but I don't notice that happening much.

It does happen, but not anywhere near as frequently as they do at Havant or with GW affecting Portsmouth mainline.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Err. Yes you can Farringdon has both IIRC.

But it is not cheap or easy. In my original comments I was thinking of changeover points the best known of which is Farringdon. These require a lot of kit on the line to control what happens to the power. If you have two separate power supplies they MUST use different conductors(wires/rails). In the case of AC the current ARRIVES via the overhead and in the case of DC the current ARRIVES via the third rail. But the current then has to RETURN back to the substation (and power station). So there have to be two separate returns - one for DC and one for AC. In a railway context this gets interesting as both systems use the running rails for the return current so there has to be switching between the two. That then also means that two trains cannot run in the same section using different supplies.

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

........Why transfer it to SN?

........

6. The battery technology isn't up to it and using a battery powered electrostar is asking for trouble as it brings another form of traction into the equation and it, risks bringing trains with incompatible couplers & computers into both Guildford & Reading.

........

The only EMU so far tried with battery technology is an electrostar. Out of Great Western, South West Trains & Southern I favour Southern because it will not really be bringing an incompatible form of traction into the equation for Southern. It will be different but most likely to be able to talk to existing electrostars. Only Southern already use electrostars - infact for the vast majority their services. Granted GW will have some in a few years time.

The route could get chopped up. One end could be extensions from Redhill and the other end a route from Reading. When I think about the middle/Guildford its SWT.

Of course, on the other hand, if there was a true long(er) distance service on the North Downs Line from say Birmingham to Gatwick/Brighton then perhaps that could be given to cross country !.

 

[swt_passenger]

FGW are the only TOC who have actually published proposals to investigate using IPEMUs on the route, following on from their 20 extra trains from May 2017, which see the end of the Shalford short workings. Page 35 of the FGW brief on the direct award franchise:

May 2017 onwards
• There will be 20 extra services on the line – made
possible by the cascade of additional rolling stock
from the Thames Valley (subject to electrification) and
infrastructure changes
• We will operate an additional second semi-fast
hourly service between Reading and Gatwick. This
will replace the peak only Shalford shuttles. The
existing semi-fast Gatwick - Reading service and
stopping Redhill-Reading services will be retained.
The enhancement recognises the importance of the
Gatwick market...

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/-/media/pdf/aboutus/ourbusiness/stakeholders report/nfgwf.pdf

Presumably these are the ideas that might really happen, rather than the various Southern and SWT possible augmentations outlined above?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Very true. That is a lot closer to actions than words. I can see cascaded 166s or 165s working from as deep as Oxford across Reading to Gatwick. Of course reaching Brighton would then link up with services along the South coast back towards Bristol !.

 

[Minstral25]

Is this possibly what the route suffers from. Passes through three separate TOCs areas. No real generator of traffic in its own right.

.

It is a potential traffic generator as already the one train per hour London to Reigate has increased traffic load from 600k pa to 1.7m pa.

Guildford/Dorking to Croydon is virtually unserved - all 3 of these towns are large traffic generators forcing commuters onto the roads which are overcrowded
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why transfer it to SN? SN have a poor reputation for punctuality due to the combining & dividing of services. GW is known a Godknows When because their punctuality & reliability is just as poor as SN, so it (NDL) should be removed from their franchise.

.

The premise of this thread is replaced the Reading to Redhill locals with a new Battery operated service from Guildford to London Bridge/Victoria and then make the reading Guildford locals a different service. Why are you so convinced the Southern shouldn't run such a service as its 75% in their territory.

The existing Reading - Gatwick services could be FGW or SWT but the premise is not to replace them.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Because as soon as you leave Redhill or Reigate, you enter the NR Wessex Zone and you will be on it for a greater distance than Vic/Ldb to Redhill.

I've told you the reasons why that battery powered units are inappropriate for the line, also you have yet to provide an good reason why they should have access to the line, when SN's reliability is already poor, you will be adding to the journey times of other trains and will BML already almost at breaking point with the number of services on it and the number of delays that already occur, do you want to add to this?

The answer is NO, as they say time is money and there's no need to provide a through service to London, when passengers from stations Gomshall - Shalford, travel via Guildford, Dorking travel via Sutton or Wimbledon, so you're only dealing with Betchworth and that's a 10' car trip to either Reigate or Dorking main. So no need for battery units at all, because the gains are marginal.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

With electrification - you could have Vic- Reading via East Croydon / Gatwick / Guildford / Reading.(etc)


Lots of useful intermediate flows....not end to end. CP7 I reckon.

 

[RobShipway]

What is needed until the line is electrified is a commuter hybrid version of the Hitachi AT200 or similar Siemens train.

Since you have both a train depot at Reading for FGW and one at Guildford for SWT, I can see the merits with either of them or perhaps both running the route as both have plenty of experience of Diesel trains, whereas SN's experience is just on the Uckfield route, plus the Brighton to Ashford route.

 

[infobleep]

FGW are the only TOC who have actually published proposals to investigate using IPEMUs on the route, following on from their 20 extra trains from May 2017, which see the end of the Shalford short workings. Page 35 of the FGW brief on the direct award franchise:



Presumably these are the ideas that might really happen, rather than the various Southern and SWT possible augmentations outlined above?

I wonder if that would mean less trains stopping at places such as Farnborough North during the morning peak or whether the semi-fast would become a semi-slow during the peaks?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With electrification - you could have Vic- Reading via East Croydon / Gatwick / Guildford / Reading.(etc)


Lots of useful intermediate flows....not end to end. CP7 I reckon.

If it's intermediate flows they might want to stop the service at every station between Redhill and at least East Croydon. I can't see a fast service to East Croydon and then London Bridge or Victoria as people can go to Waterloo quicker from Guildford.

There use to be one train a day from London Bridge that on paper was quicker to get to Shalford than going via Waterloo East / Waterloo. I don't know about now with the engineering works at London Bridge.

As for Betchworth, they could always close it and tell passengers to drive 10 minutes instead! Evil joke there. Not being serious.

 

[Deepgreen]

[QUOTE

As for Betchworth, they could always close it and tell passengers to drive 10 minutes instead! Evil joke there. Not being serious.[/QUOTE]

How very dare you (see my location)!

 

[infobleep]

[QUOTE

As for Betchworth, they could always close it and tell passengers to drive 10 minutes instead! Evil joke there. Not being serious.

How very dare you (see my location)![/QUOTE]
There will always be winners and lovers of any timetable change!

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if that would mean less trains stopping at places such as Farnborough North during the morning peak or whether the semi-fast would become a semi-slow during the peaks?

Farnborough North is a fairly busy station due to the number of students who use it to get to the colleges in Farnborough, so it is unlikely that FGW would be that keen to reduce the number of services.

Also, given that Farnborough North is served by the current semi fast services during the peak hours it is unlikely that the service frequency will fall.