Gatwick Express services

[QJ]

Manchester Airport is a through station

Looked very much like a terminus on the end of a branch line to me when I lived nearby. Those trains from Wilmslow to Manchester Piccadilly and vice versa via Heald Green calling at the airport have to reverse back out the way they came. That isn't my definition of a through station.

There was talk at one time of tunnelling under the runway at MIA and creating some form of loop line to allow Cardiff to Manchester services (amongst others) to run via the Airport. Sadly it was just talk.

 

[MCR247]

I'd call a through station a station which allows trains to enter one end and exit the other. By my definition Manchester Airport is a terminus station. It does have through services though!

 

[tbtc]

I'd call a through station a station which allows trains to enter one end and exit the other. By my definition Manchester Airport is a terminus station. It does have through services though!

There are plenty of termini with through services (Bradford Interchange, Hull Paragon, the overground platforms at Liverpool Lime Street) I suppose.

 

[RobShipway]

Although I haven't seen the article it sounds very much like all Rail have done is written a piece based on the latest 'GatEx' proposals shown in the Thameslink/Southern franchise consultation.

That proposal is basically a repeat of what is already in the Sussex RUS anyway. Splitting and joining is an option allowed for by the new platform layout at Gatwick, as discussed previously here.

Whatever they've written in the mag seems to have convinced Robbies that it is a new idea though...

It is not that fact of combining the Gatwick Express services with the existing Brighton - London services, which should have happened anyway that got me to post, it is that the new owners of Gatwick Airport are complaining that they do not have a dedicated service anymore. I am sure that there is a few major airports around Europe that also do not have dedicated services............

With regards the class 460's, there are still two I believe doing regular GatEx service up to the end of the year.

 

[ainsworth74]

With regards the class 460's, there are still two I believe doing regular GatEx service up to the end of the year.

As far as I'm aware the 460s are all out of use apart from the odd run when a 442 is unavailable. Certainly I don't think any remain booked to work services.

 

[David10]

There is normally one 460 out to play on a weekday. During the Olympics there have been up to 3.

 

[causton]

There is normally one 460 out to play on a weekday. During the Olympics there have been up to 3.

Indeed, have seen 01 ( ), 02 and 07 out last weekend!

 

[SprinterMan]

Wkipedia (...) says that after the Olympics are over all will go off-lease properly:

Majority withdrawn in 2011 and stored at Bournemouth depot, although units 01 and 02 remain in use on peak-time services. Two further units will temporarily re-enter service for the London 2012 Olympics, after which all 460s will be withdrawn from traffic. Units are set to be transferred to South West Trains to form Class 458/5 units.

Adam

 

[yorkie]

Wkipedia (...) says that after the Olympics are over all will go off-lease properly:
Adam

Wikipedia does not say anything. Someone writing on Wikipedia has, but that is not a primary source (references can be found at the end of each article though this particular point does not appear to be referenced).

 

[David10]

Wikipedia does not say anything. Someone writing on Wikipedia has, but that is not a primary source (references can be found at the end of each article though this particular point does not appear to be referenced).

And considering the person who has written that thinks some existing 377 sets will be reformed as five car sets, wouldn't place too much faith in it.

 

[Stats]

This article (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9859557.Gatwick_trains__not_fit_for_purpose__airport_claims/) might put some context around the Rail article which prompted this thread.

As for Robbies intended discussion point. I don't think an Airport can expect or demand something just because they are an Airport, but if they can prove that what they are asking for gives a better return to the economy than the alternative then they are well within the rights to lobby Government for it to be included in the franchise spec. But the Government and TOC need to balance the needs of all users.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Tis the brake test that takes the time, rather than the jumpers. And you need another member of staff to do the brake test, unless the shunter runs down to do it.

The brake test should take no time at all. If coupling two units historically the continuity was tested at the first point with a brake handle and gauge in the rear unit which was the leading cab of the second unit. It's only the continuity between the units that is being tested as both of the individual sets have had their continuity tested before entering service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also the shunter has to pop down on to the track to pin the buckeye

".....pin the Buckeye". What is that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that it is a case that some people in the Railway Industry need to listen to Rail Enthusiasts, who may work outside of the Rail industry but do quite often have so better ideas as to how the Rail system should be worked in this country, rather than working on the philosphy that this is always how it has been done. But this is just my point of view folks and it is not meant to upset anyone.......

If the railway were left to enthusiasts we'd still have steam hauled "express" trains.

 

[RobShipway]

This article (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9859557.Gatwick_trains__not_fit_for_purpose__airport_claims/) might put some context around the Rail article which prompted this thread.

As for Robbies intended discussion point. I don't think an Airport can expect or demand something just because they are an Airport, but if they can prove that what they are asking for gives a better return to the economy than the alternative then they are well within the rights to lobby Government for it to be included in the franchise spec. But the Government and TOC need to balance the needs of all users.

Even though I grew up in East Sussex and when travelling on the train from Brighton would see the Gatwick Express trains running, I also do not agree that an airport should expect a dedicated service. I know that Heathrow has dedicated service and Stanstead does as well, but certainly in the case of Heathrow this is paid for by BAA. I doubt that the new owners will pay towards a better service for Gatwick and as quoted above they also need to lobby the Government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That depends on what generation of people you ask. I am in my early forties and believe that the third rail should be ditched in favour of OHL AC, plus Gatwick should be served by Class 379's doing semi fast services between Brigton and London.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

".....pin the Buckeye". What is that?

I suspect he means the pivot pin, but if you're coupling two multiple units together chances are the buckeye will already be raised.

 

[6Gman]

Srely the fundamental point here is that the Airport operators would like:

Dedicated Gatwick-Victoria trains, that sit in the platform at each end for 10-15 minutes minimum, have wide access doors and ample luggage space.

Unfortunately for them they are not the only people with an interest in the Brighton Line!

 

[Minstral25]

As an alternative opinion. I do believe the Gatwick Express should be withdrawn as a premium service and replaced by a Gatwick Connect service calling Gatwick, East Croydon, Clapham Junction and London Victoria.

Passengers leaving the airport will still get first option on seats but it will provide extra services between East Croydon and Clapham/Victoria where there is a massive capacity shortage. This would also make other suburban services going via East Croydon less densely packed.

Passengers returning to the airport will get any train as they do now.

It would also mean faster Brighton Services as two trains per hour could run from London Victoria to Haywards Heath non-stop and thus provide a must faster service to Brighton.

 

[Skymonster]

It is indeed unfortunate for them... Having now read the article in Rail (and having used GX in the 73, 460 and 442 days), I have to agree with much of what is said. The 442s are vastly inferior to the 460s in almost every respect - space for luggage, ease of access, height of floor, comfort, etc. And of course Brighton-London trains already well loaded with commuters stop at Gatwick and its very dificult for passengers with luggage to get on the trains. Airports need differently configured trains to commuter services - much more lugggage space, wider doors, aisles, etc. whereas commuter trains should be in maximum density configuration. There was no point in sending the 460s to Brighton because they didn't seat enough folks to use on those services, and whilst the 460s would have been no good for Brighton the 442s are hopeless for Gatwick. So like it or not, busy airports like Gatwick and Heathrow need dedicated services with dedicated stock. Its very sad that DfT haven't taken a total transport view - including the requirement of plane and train passengers - but instead have gone for a solution that favours commuters but does no favours for air passengers. For a GOOD airport service, you need look no further than HEX - quick journey, trains configured with wide doors and plenty of luggage space, dedicated service so that passengers boarding at Heathrow don't have to try to push onto trains already well loaded with punters coming from elsewhere (the only issue I have with HEX is the fare, but that's a different debate). That's how it should be done, and that's what the expanding Gatwick needs back (in respect of Heathrow, the only thing that should be done is get rid of those rediculous Heathrow Connect trains that clog the place up and serve no useful purpose - if travelers want a slower cheaper service they should be directed to the tube)

Andy

 

[tbtc]

It is indeed unfortunate for them... Having now read the article in Rail (and having used GX in the 73, 460 and 442 days), I have to agree with much of what is said. The 442s are vastly inferior to the 460s in almost every respect - space for luggage, ease of access, height of floor, comfort, etc. And of course Brighton-London trains already well loaded with commuters stop at Gatwick and its very dificult for passengers with luggage to get on the trains. Airports need differently configured trains to commuter services - much more lugggage space, wider doors, aisles, etc. whereas commuter trains should be in maximum density configuration. There was no point in sending the 460s to Brighton because they didn't seat enough folks to use on those services, and whilst the 460s would have been no good for Brighton the 442s are hopeless for Gatwick. So like it or not, busy airports like Gatwick and Heathrow need dedicated services with dedicated stock. Its very sad that DfT haven't taken a total transport view - including the requirement of plane and train passengers - but instead have gone for a solution that favours commuters but does no favours for air passengers. For a GOOD airport service, you need look no further than HEX - quick journey, trains configured with wide doors and plenty of luggage space, dedicated service so that passengers boarding at Heathrow don't have to try to push onto trains already well loaded with punters coming from elsewhere (the only issue I have with HEX is the fare, but that's a different debate). That's how it should be done, and that's what the expanding Gatwick needs back (in respect of Heathrow, the only thing that should be done is get rid of those rediculous Heathrow Connect trains that clog the place up and serve no useful purpose - if travelers want a slower cheaper service they should be directed to the tube)

Andy

The problem is that there's not sufficient capacity on the BML for all of these different services - why have underused/ dedicated Airport services on a line where there's not sufficient space for daily commuters? Luton doesn't have that luxury.

And Heathrow Connect is there to serve local stations in western London which lacked a direct link to the Airport, not (just) to compete with Heathrow Express on price.

 

[Minstral25]

The problem is that there's not sufficient capacity on the BML for all of these different services - why have underused/ dedicated Airport services on a line where there's not sufficient space for daily commuters? Luton doesn't have that luxury.

And Heathrow Connect is there to serve local stations in western London which lacked a direct link to the Airport, not (just) to compete with Heathrow Express on price.

Absolutely - the northern BML is full of overcrowded trains often with standing room only even off-peak and then every 15 minutes a class 442 with either 366 or 732 virtually empty seats takes a path.

I don't think 442's could run the "Connect" service I suggested above as they couldn't get the passengers on quick enough at East Croydon or Clapham Junction, so they need to be shunted off for faster "express" services with few stops and draft 377's in to run the "Gatwick Connect" services.

The busiest Gatwick Airport services will soon be in the hands of units with wide doors and lots of space in 2018 when the 700's(?) take over - shame they will be fitted out the wrong way for most services on the BML

 

[LE Greys]

The problem is that there's not sufficient capacity on the BML for all of these different services - why have underused/ dedicated Airport services on a line where there's not sufficient space for daily commuters? Luton doesn't have that luxury.

And Heathrow Connect is there to serve local stations in western London which lacked a direct link to the Airport, not (just) to compete with Heathrow Express on price.

Quite right! I've always thought HEX was seriously mishandled when it was set up. HC went some way to addressing that defecit, by making westbound connections easier and reducing the price (especially for people with Railcards and Travelcards, valid all the way to Hayes & Harlington). Besides, there are no through tickets on HEX or HC, which is extremely inconvenient and one reason why I was very annoyed when BA closed down the Aberdeen-Gatwick service. Stansted would probably be a far better model for an airport service on a branch, but that's really another issue.

With Gatwick Airport being an ordinary NR station, it clearly has to be handled differently. I've never really understood why they don't use some form of fare suppliment, just as they did on the Brighton Belle on the same line, which would make it a lot easier to understand and enforce. As long as people knew before they boarded that it was a supplimentary-fare service, then it would work.

 

[ushawk]

And considering the person who has written that thinks some existing 377 sets will be reformed as five car sets, wouldn't place too much faith in it.

Thats not totally wrong. A new batch of 377s have been ordered (will be /6s) and will be 5-car in length - although no current 377s will be reformed.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I suspect he means the pivot pin, but if you're coupling two multiple units together chances are the buckeye will already be raised.

Ah I see. Well on the Southern all M.U.s ran around with the Buckeyes in the permanently raised position. As a bit of trivia they also - unlike loco hauled stock Buckeyes - had tell-tale pins fitted on the top of the coupling to aid coupling done at platform level.

 

[LE Greys]

Ah I see. Well on the Southern all M.U.s ran around with the Buckeyes in the permanently raised position. As a bit of trivia they also - unlike loco hauled stock Buckeyes - had tell-tale pins fitted on the top of the coupling to aid coupling done at platform level.

I don't believe I've ever seen a buckeye dropped on a Southern unit, and generally thought they were fixed-head rather than drop-head.

Another bit of trivia, Bulleid brought the idea with him from the LNER, Maunsell units had plain old screw couplings.

 

[jon0844]

Could some of the 442s be reconfigured internally for some carriages that are locked out until Gatwick, thus serving airport passengers who get a chance to board - and places to put luggage?

No doubt any passengers in the other part of the train would be able to step off and back on if they knew it would likely be near empty (as any regular would soon learn). Those from Brighton still get on and get a seat, but don't spread out as much to stop people using the Gatwick Express portion that is part of the same train and one single path.

All you'd need to do is lock an internal gangway door to stop people just going through internally.

 

[30909]

I travelled on a Gatwick Express from Victoria to Gatwick today, and I think there were 2 people in the coach I was in. It may as well be called the 'Fresh Air Express' as I saw one or two of the other services and they were pretty empty too. At the moment they aare wasting valuable paths/capacity.

An idea I had a year or two back was to operate Gatex as Victoria-Brighton formed of 10 cars (2x Class 442), with 5 being dropped off at Gatwick. On the return, these would be waiting in the platform (full of, or empty of, flight passengers), and the other 5 would arrive from Brighton, bolt on to the back and then away.

All of this reminds me that Southern Region had this working in the 70's called Rail Air Link IIR. Rear 4 coaches configured with extra luggage space in ex 4 VEPs previously 2 x 2BIL with no internal changes but Guard/Luggage compartment. Again IIR all were attached to Littlehampton – Bognor services – 2 an hour – and some left standing in the up loop others to the up carriage sidings to lead the return service to Victoria via Quarry Line East Croydon & Clapham Junction. Doubtless this is all a figment of my aging imagination and someone will be happy to correct me!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I don't believe I've ever seen a buckeye dropped on a Southern unit, and generally thought they were fixed-head rather than drop-head.

Another bit of trivia, Bulleid brought the idea with him from the LNER, Maunsell units had plain old screw couplings.

The Buckeys on the Southern were the standard sort of coupling with the ability to be dropped and collars put on the buffers. The only difference - as I pointed out to another poster - was that they had tell-tale coupling pins at the top to facilitate coupling of trains at platform level - hence the waist level brake pipes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All of this reminds me that Southern Region had this working in the 70's called Rail Air Link IIR. Rear 4 coaches configured with extra luggage space in ex 4 VEPs previously 2 x 2BIL with no internal changes but Guard/Luggage compartment. Again IIR all were attached to Littlehampton – Bognor services – 2 an hour – and some left standing in the up loop others to the up carriage sidings to lead the return service to Victoria via Quarry Line East Croydon & Clapham Junction. Doubtless this is all a figment of my aging imagination and someone will be happy to correct me!

You're almost there. The original working was that a four car was attached at the London end to a Littlehampton/Bognor/wherever and upon arrival at Gatwick was then uncoupled and run off into the sidings to await being attached to an up working. The next development was the "Gatwick Rapid City Link". This saw twelve VEPs converted for Gatwick use with removal of some of the seating bays and replacement by luggage racks. These units were re-classified as VEGs and externally recognisable (apart from the Gatwick City Link lettering) by the flourescent green stripe at cantrail level. Again, attached to normal workings. Needless to say the occasional failure saw them escaping to various parts of the Central Division to the delight of the train spotting fraternity. Finally, with the explosion of cheap holidays and the rapid expansion of the airport B.R., suddenly having lots of surplus Mk IIe and f coaches following the introduction of the HST fleet and piles of 73s gathering dust and HAPs left over from the introduction of the 508s took ten firsts and seventy standards, ten motor coaches from the HAPs and ten, then eleven, and finally thirteen 73s, waved a magic wand over them and WHUMPH! out of the smoke clouds rolled the Gatwick Express sets. With a fifteen minute interval service for the thirty minute trip the advertising slogan was, "You're wearing the timetable on your wrist".
I know, I was there.

 

[RobShipway]

How much different are the Class 379's used for the Stanstead Express to the 377's? I am wondering if the 377/6 five car trains will have more space for luggage so will replace the 442's so that those can be used on the Brighton, East Croydon to London Victoria services?

I know having used the class 442's when living down in Bournemouth in the 1990's that issues where seen with them being used even for Southampton Parkway, so unless they were gutted and rebuilt inside with the end exterior doors expanded, then they would be no good for GatEX services. I think that the FGW class 165/166 trains that do Reading - Gatwick probably have more luggage space in them in their 2 - 3 cars than the Class 442's do in their 5 cars per passenger seat.

I think if the new owners of Gatwick want a dedicated service, then they are going to not only lobby Daft, but also spend out for appropriate rolling stock as BAA did for the Hex service.

 

[jopsuk]

The interior of the 379s (spacious, 2+1 1st class, lots of luggage racks) is entirely irrelevant to the 377/6 order. The former are Airport Express units, with interior specified as such. Pretty sure the 377/6s have been ordered to run on suburban routes- which means they'll have a fairly high density seating layout with little luggage space.

 

[jon0844]

The 379s still don't have enough room for the size and quantity of cases people take to Stansted, so they still fill the aisles and vestibule.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tbtc]

I think if the new owners of Gatwick want a dedicated service, then they are going to not only lobby Daft, but also spend out for appropriate rolling stock as BAA did for the Hex service.

With Heathrow there were at least spare paths, and a brand new branch off the GWML for HEX services to run on.

With Gatwick you are having to share tracks on one of the busiest lines in the country - I just can't see that there's room for a "dedicated" Airport service there (in the way that you'd be laughed at if you suggested a dedicated fast service from Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street, there isn't capacity for such a stand-alone route).