London Waterloo to Poole services

[TheWalrus]

I wanted to discuss the purpose of these services. Trains generally run semi-fast between London and Eastleigh, wait to be overtaken (maybe just on Northbound services I'm not sure) go on to Southampton, sit there for about 18 minutes to let the fast Weymouth through, then go on as a stopper to Brockenhurst, sit there for 25 minutes then stop at most stops to Poole. I don't understand how this makes sense.

I would suggest it is broken up into an Eastleigh-London semi-fast as anyone from Southampton would get the following fast; and a Southampton to Bournemouth stopper getting a better path connecting out of the fast at Southampton, with Branksome and Parkstone calls transferred onto the Weymouths.

What do you think? Please discuss.

 

[swt_passenger]

It isn't overtaken at Eastleigh in the down direction, so even for passengers from intermediate stations from Waterloo it provides a semi-fast service as far as Southampton, which it did before they linked it to become a through service beyond there.

There's a logic to what they did though. Prior to the link up, there was a separate Brockenhurst to Wareham service, this provided the all stations service between those points. There was an hourly Waterloo - Weymouth service, and an hourly Waterloo - Poole service.

The Brockenhurst to Wareham service ran in timings suitable for passengers to change out of a fast service at Brockenhurst for the minor stops beyond there. The Poole service provided the calls between Southampton and Brockenhurst.

Fast forward to the decision to run two tph to Weymouth. A possible solution was to just extend the Poole service, with all its existing calls, through to Weymouth, and perhaps run a shortened Brockenhurst to Poole stopper, but they wanted to speed up the second Weymouth train, so they removed the calls at stations between Southampton and Brockenhurst, and gave them to the new Poole service which extended from Southampton.

So what this did was link two separate services (while leaving them in their original timings) by adding a new short section in the middle, so what you have now is a service that is caught up at Southampton and overtaken, but allows for passengers to change from the fast service for places such as Totton and Ashurst, and it also allows for passengers in the down direction from Shawford and Eastleigh to change into a fast service to Bournemouth and Weymouth.

That's the down direction explanation, in the up direction it is far simpler, with only one 'overtake' at Eastleigh.

Some people think that the Poole service should only be advertised as far as Southampton on leaving Waterloo, and as a Brockenhurst service once well into its journey, in a similar away to the up direction train being advertised as a Farnborough service west of Southampton.

Breaking the route at Eastleigh? Well that would remove the main Eastleigh to Southampton service, absolutely no point in that at all. I think when you suggest changes you really must consider ALL the intermediate flows in both directions...

 

[TheWalrus]

Thank you for the detailed response.

I have little knowledge of the local area and passenger flows so really I'm working on educated guesses and reworking the timetable logistically.

I didn't realise the Poole services wern't overtaken on the southbound journeys so it makes more sense to still run to Southampton. I will amend my original post accordingly.

I did consider the Eastleigh-Southampton flow and realised there is also the hourly Romsey-Salisbury service but I guess i will make more sense to keep it as Southampton-Waterloo.

One question though: this may seem like a silly question but do all the staff have to stay on the train while it sits at Southampton and Brockenhurst and is therefore costing SWT more staffing costs? If it was broken up and the sitting around cut out would this mean the staff could come off the train for a break or sign off and therefore SWT could save money?

 

[swt_passenger]

To the best of my knowledge the staff do usually change at Southampton, (not sure about Brockenhurst) but the train is not really ever 'unmanned'.

In my experience the oncoming guard often spends the first 10 minutes after arrival standing on the platform recommending to approaching people that they might be better off getting the fast train from P4, and a few times when I've been intending to stay on the train the off going driver (walking through the train) has also asked me if I'm sure I need to be there...

 

[TheWalrus]

So basically if the train is never unmanned whilst in service then they are paying for that train to be manned.

If it was terminated at Southampton instead the crew could come off somewhere and have a break or sign off?

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, but it's only 15 mins or so - I don't think it is unusual in the overall scheme of things to have a crew available during such a short period - it's not really any different to when a SN train sits there for 15 mins between arrival and departure except they have a reversal to deal with as well.

A terminating and reversing XC service has a crew on board for the half hour trip to one of the loops beyond the station. You could say that's a waste of half an hour of the guard's time, but I doubt it is considered so by XC.

 

[TheWalrus]

Yes, but it's only 15 mins or so - I don't think it is unusual in the overall scheme of things to have a crew available during such a short period - it's not really any different to when a SN train sits there for 15 mins between arrival and departure except they have a reversal to deal with as well.

A terminating and reversing XC service has a crew on board for the half hour trip to one of the loops beyond the station. You could say that's a waste of half an hour of the guard's time, but I doubt it is considered so by XC.

No but that's slightly different. They need that time to turn the train around.

In regards to the Pooles, it's time that could be removed if the service was broken up.

 

[swt_passenger]

If you break the service at Southampton, what are you going to do with the unit? It's too busy for it to sit in Southampton for long. Before the changes, the incoming service used to run out beyond the station into one of the loops, and return empty to form the next xx55 back towards Waterloo. That took around 40 mins - with a driver onboard...

 

[Matt Taylor]

I'm working an up Poole tomorrow and have a down and up Poole on Friday, all being worked from and to Southampton. Ineresting points raised so far but in my opinion there is too much traffic in the greater Southampton conurbation from Totton to Eastleigh to split the train up.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm working an up Poole tomorrow and have a down and up Poole on Friday, all being worked from and to Southampton. Ineresting points raised so far but in my opinion there is too much traffic in the greater Southampton conurbation from Totton to Eastleigh to split the train up.

I was wondering how long before departure SWT expect the train crew to be in place and ready to go - but presumably in the context of the whole day's crew diagramming, although the odd 10 mins here and there add up to a lot in total, in this particular instance the 15 mins the train sits in Southampton isn't unreasonable as there's no practical alternative...

 

[455driver]

Normally a train cannot be left unattended on a running line so there would need to be a driver (at least) on board the whole time it was waiting.

The driver can be stood on the platform but must be near the cab just in case anyone needs to contact them.

 

[TheWalrus]

I'm working an up Poole tomorrow and have a down and up Poole on Friday, all being worked from and to Southampton. Ineresting points raised so far but in my opinion there is too much traffic in the greater Southampton conurbation from Totton to Eastleigh to split the train up.

At what points do they ever get busy? The ones I saw yesterday had about 1 in each carriage!

Looks like I may need to rethink this one…

 

[jopsuk]

one to chalk up to the "fantasy widening" list- four track throughout Eastleigh-Totton?

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't really see what the major problem is that TheWalrus wants to solve.

As I've pointed out earlier, the timings allow people to change out of a down fast service for the minor calls before Brockenhurst, and also at the same time allows for people to change onto the fast service if going further on than Brockenhurst.

 

[causton]

Normally a train cannot be left unattended on a running line so there would need to be a driver (at least) on board the whole time it was waiting.

The driver can be stood on the platform but must be near the cab just in case anyone needs to contact them.

Does this include terminus stations i.e. at Kings Cross where the doors are already released when the train is announced, then you see the driver head up holding a hot beverage from a local outlet around 5 minutes before departure? (Not that I'm blaming the driver for this!)

 

[yorkie]

I would suggest it is broken up into an Eastleigh-London semi-fast as anyone from Southampton would get the following fast; and a Southampton to Bournemouth stopper getting a better path connecting out of the fast at Southampton, with Branksome and Parkstone calls transferred onto the Weymouths.

What exactly do you propose in terms of timings & paths - can you put the detail here please? It's easy to say "a better path" but until you can demonstrate the path is viable....

Also what are the benefits of such a split? I can think of drawbacks such as losing some through services for smaller stations, but I cannot think of any benefits.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well as I pointed out already, the original idea that Yorkie is quoting casually removes the main Eastleigh to Southampton service. This is the sort of thing that happens when you wrongly assume everyone wants to go to London...

But of course another significant point is that this is the off-peak service. In the up morning peak and the down evening peak the service is significantly different anyway, with various splitting and joining going on to use the paths differently...

I repeat that the current service isn't causing any significant issues - except for people accidentally staying on the stopping train when the timetable advises them differently I suppose...

 

[Eagle]

I repeat that the current service isn't causing any significant issues - except for people accidentally staying on the stopping train when the timetable advises them differently I suppose...

It might be different further up the line, but at the Dorset end they're announced as being for Farnborough Main, being the last station they don't have in common with faster services.

Of course anyone who actually wants to go to Farnborough should switch onto the fast service at Brockenhurst and change again at Basingstoke.

 

[Lrd]

It might be different further up the line, but at the Dorset end they're announced as being for Farnborough Main, being the last station they don't have in common with faster services.

Southampton Airport is the last station to announce it as Farnborough, although Southampton Central announces it as a Waterloo service. I have seen a few people confused and rush over to platform 2 when the stopper is announced but the majority of people will catch the fast service 5 minutes later.

 

[swt_passenger]

It might be different further up the line, but at the Dorset end they're announced as being for Farnborough Main, being the last station they don't have in common with faster services.

I did mention that in post #2...

I believe they advertise it as Waterloo at Southampton Central specifically for the benefit of Megatrain ticket holders, who would be a bit confused by Farnborough...

 

[TheWalrus]

I can't really see what the major problem is that TheWalrus wants to solve.

As I've pointed out earlier, the timings allow people to change out of a down fast service for the minor calls before Brockenhurst, and also at the same time allows for people to change onto the fast service if going further on than Brockenhurst.

The waiting around.

Let me get back to you on this one

 

[Matt Taylor]

I repeat that the current service isn't causing any significant issues - except for people accidentally staying on the stopping train when the timetable advises them differently I suppose...

Of course if they have a decent guard they'll be advised on the PA and during ticket checks to change at Southampton Airport for a faster service to Basingstoke, Clapham and Waterloo.

 

[swt_passenger]

Of course if they have a decent guard they'll be advised on the PA and during ticket checks to change at Southampton Airport for a faster service to Basingstoke, Clapham and Waterloo.

Well that does invariably happen, in my experience.

I think the more usual issue is unfamiliar passengers attempting to join the train at Southampton if wanting to go to Poole - they just see the word Poole on the overhead display and filter everything else out...

 

[TheWalrus]

Hello again and apologies for taking so long to respond, but I think I've found a solution.

The basic idea is as follows:
- XX39 Waterloo-Poole services terminate at Southampton Central. The unit will have 20 minutes turnaround time then form a stopping service to Portsmouth & Southsea departing at XX38, arriving at Portsmouth at XX36. It will have 10 minutes turnaround time and return to Southampton at XX46 arriving at XX46. This gives 9 minutes turnaround at Southampton before returning to Waterloo at XX55 in its usual path.
- The Southampton Central-Poole part originates at Southampton at XX00 calling at all the same stations as far as Bournemouth where it will terminate at XX48. It will have 17 minutes turnaround returning to Southampton at XX05, arriving at XX53, operating its current path but terminating at Southampton. This saves waiting for 25 minutes at Brockenhurst.
- The loss of the Bournemouth-Poole section is compensated by additional calls on the remaining Weymouth services at Branksome and Parkstone.

This removes waiting time at both Southampton and Brockenhurst (although creating a bit of turnaround at Southampton) and also saves a unit waiting at Portsmouth for nearly an hour, every hour. It also removes a lengthy turnaround at Poole and ultimately saves 2 units. these units could then be sent to other routes for strengthening or to the Lymington branch to release a 158.

 

[Eagle]

- The loss of the Bournemouth-Poole section is compensated by additional calls on the remaining Weymouth services at Branksome and Parkstone.

This won't work; currently it's the slower of the two Weymouth trains that skips Branksome and Parkstone, which is to prevent the fast train right behind it getting too close.

Also reducing Bournemouth–Poole services from 3tph to 2tph is definitely a bad idea; if anything that section of route needs a more frequent service, not less.

 

[TheWalrus]

This won't work; currently it's the slower of the two Weymouth trains that skips Branksome and Parkstone, which is to prevent the fast train right behind it getting too close.

Also reducing Bournemouth–Poole services from 3tph to 2tph is definitely a bad idea; if anything that section of route needs a more frequent service, not less.

Ok well it wouldn't be too difficult to extend my proposed Bournemouth-Southampton stoppers to/from Poole as they do now. Alternatively I did consider extending XC to Poole as a possibility in place of the stopper, you could also use a unit for a Bournemouth-Poole stopper as it may make more sense than sitting there for ages, if you can terminate at Bournemouth coming from the westbound direction.

 

[swt_passenger]

Your solution isn't a solution at all. The Portsmouth Southampton service is always a 4 car unit - except for that odd 3 car 159 that does one return service each weekday.

But some Poole stoppers are 10.444 or 12.450. Even if they were the same size trains all day you seem to be attempting to run the Portsmouth stopping service with effectively 2 units, yet this has always used 3 units with a long layover at one end or the other. So whatever the main reason for that - probably overall service reliability, and especially to allow for the peak period extensions to Portsmouth Harbour where the end to end time is much longer.

Interworking a long distance service from Waterloo with a local stopper leads to what they call 'performance pollution' which is presumably why they don't normally do it.

Lastly, how does your plan work in the evening peak down direction, when the portion working of down fasts kicks in at Southampton or Bournemouth, and the xx39 becomes the second Portsmouth via Eastleigh service for a couple of hours?

I still say you are trying to fix a non-existent problem. So why not try and solve the obviously unnecessary wait at Haslemere on the down Portsmouth stoppers? There's another few minutes of terrible waste most hours while a train gates overtaken...

 

[Matt Taylor]

Leaving Southampton at XX38 would clash with the two hourly XC service that leaves at XX40 and would also clash with the Waterloo to Weymouth at St Denys Junction. The Portsmouth-Southampton service is a self contained service using three units that are exclusive to the route from 0930 to 2340 and mixing them with Waterloo services would just increase potential disruption leading to poor service. Additionally Class 444s are not suitable for the line as they don't fit at Hamble-and there is no need for more than a nominal number of first class seats.

 

[TheWalrus]

What if the Southampton-Portsmouth was left alone as a self-contained shuttle and the London-Southampton left as a self-contained shuttle with the Southampton-Poole part a self-contained shuttle? Now that should work?

 

[duncanp]

What if the Southampton-Portsmouth was left alone as a self-contained shuttle and the London-Southampton left as a self-contained shuttle with the Southampton-Poole part a self-contained shuttle? Now that should work?

Well I should imagine that people from stations West of Southampton wouldn't be very pleased at having to change.