Longer trains in the SE - Are they a good idea

[tbtc]

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. In my experience, normal walking takes just under about 2 minutes to walk the length of an 8 car train. So that's nearly 3 minutes for a 12 car train

How often do people walk the entire length of a twelve coach train at both ends of their journey?

And how often do people arrive at the platform without a couple of minutes spare?

Granted, it will happen, but you're going for a pretty extreme example.

 

[Greenback]

How often do people walk the entire length of a twelve coach train at both ends of their journey?

And how often do people arrive at the platform without a couple of minutes spare?

Granted, it will happen, but you're going for a pretty extreme example.

Correct. It is not as much of a problem or disincentive to travel as the OP believes.

 

[lookingforit35]

"Oh no - a long train! I think I'd better not use the railway as that will be a real inconvenience."

A somewhat loopy notion.

 

[WatcherZero]

Oh well, you've always got your current sardine cans then if chipping four inches off the edges of platforms is too hard.

You would also have to move ALL the tracks further apart, in most cases this is more limiting than platform width.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"Oh no - a long train! I think I'd better not use the railway as that will be a real inconvenience."

A somewhat loopy notion.

This is starting to get absurd in terms of misrepresenting what I said.

 

[455driver]

Oh well, you've always got your current sardine cans then if chipping four inches off the edges of platforms is too hard.

Beaten to it by several posters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Peak hour departures from Waterloo 1701-1730

Windsor lines
1701,1705,1707,1713,1715,1720,1722,1728.
While there are 2 lines out of Waterloo, the down windsor fast and down Windsor slow, both lines join before going through Queenstown Road station (QRB), the reversible is next to useless for departing trains due to them having to cross over the up lines at QRB.

Main fast departures at-
1702,1705,1709,1715,1720,1723,1725,1730.

Main slow departures at-
1702,1706,1709,1712,1716,1720,1724,1727,1730.

Now add in all the corresponding arriving trains and the conflicting moves (train into P1 prevents any train leaving on the down slow line for example, can you explain where the extra paths come from!

 

[Eagle]

Ideally Crossrail should have been built to take double decker trains like the RER but oh well...

And have to rebuild every bridge and every platform out to Reading and Shenfield?

 

[bgstrowger]

Aside from the infrastructure issues mentioned, there is a capacity issue with double deck trains in that dwell times at stations would increase as there would be more people trying to get out. This was certainly what the Southern found when operating the 4DDs. Long single deck trains at a regular frequency would be better.

Also on infrastructure, would double deck trains be able to fit underneath the Brighton line platforms at Victoria, the Great Eastern platforms at Liverpool St, or Cannon Street or Charing Cross?

 

[NSE]

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. In my experience, normal walking takes just under about 2 minutes to walk the length of an 8 car train. So that's nearly 3 minutes for a 12 car train. For someone who's elderly or infirm (and those are the people who most need seats) you can easily add 50% to that. If the platform is very crowded so you need to filter around other people you can add a bit more again. So in the most extreme case, if you have to walk most of the platform at both ends of your journey, you could be looking over 5 minutes walking along the platform (assuming you are sufficiently concerned to get a seat that you're willing to walk to get a seat). Now granted I don't make many complete journeys of less than 5 minutes, but it does happen. If my journey involves changing trains then it's quite common that I spend no more than 5 minutes on a single train.

I disagree with the OP. What you seem to be forgetting is at the stations such as Victoria serve such a massive range of destinations. Which services do you want to increase to a high frequency? You can't fit them all in. Also, some services split with multiple destinations, therefore people are going to have to walk anyway to the front four coaches etc. This is a very effective way of getting two trains out in one go. I also disagree that it takes 2 minutes to walk down an 8 car train. Plus, commuters know where their train leaves from/where to stand to get a seat/where to stand to get off for their exit etc, so you might actually find that even if they cram on, they want to be in that carriage for when it thins out.

 

[jopsuk]

London Midland's guide to the most packed of their trains leaving Euston in the peak has 12-car trains, running as often as is practical given the capacity (the WCML is at capacity) that have a warning that people may need to stand for 20 minutes or more.

At peak times, at all the London terminals handling long trains, you'll see packed trains either arrive (morning) or leave (evening) as often as is technically possible given the current infrastructure. Whilst double deckers would be nice, those extra dimensions are far from trivial, it certainly isn't a case of knocking a few inches off all the platform faces- you be surprised at how low some over bridges are- there's a road bridge at Whittlesford Parkway where the pantographs on said Electrostars are as compressed as they can safely be to the untrained eye, with surprisingly little clearance between bridge and wire- this is not unique! Most lines will have tunnels that the current stock fits through well, but that that stock would simply not get down- and tunnels are very hard to make bigger.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is starting to get absurd in terms of misrepresenting what I said.

Could you please clarify where the absurdity lies?

Could it be this:

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. In my experience, normal walking takes just under about 2 minutes to walk the length of an 8 car train. So that's nearly 3 minutes for a 12 car train. For someone who's elderly or infirm (and those are the people who most need seats) you can easily add 50% to that. If the platform is very crowded so you need to filter around other people you can add a bit more again. So in the most extreme case, if you have to walk most of the platform at both ends of your journey, you could be looking over 5 minutes walking along the platform (assuming you are sufficiently concerned to get a seat that you're willing to walk to get a seat).

Its absurd that anyone wishing to board a long train has to walk further. The reverse is of course true. The larger the 'target' the easier it is to reach (with whatever mobility or facility the person has).

I do hope you will agree with me, without any 'absurdity', that longer trains provide opportunities for less walking on the platform that a short train, and that longer trains provide more capacity on the network than short trains.

 

[TheJRB]

For someone who's elderly or infirm (and those are the people who most need seats) you can easily add 50% to that. If the platform is very crowded so you need to filter around other people you can add a bit more again. So in the most extreme case, if you have to walk most of the platform at both ends of your journey, you could be looking over 5 minutes walking along the platform (assuming you are sufficiently concerned to get a seat that you're willing to walk to get a seat). Now granted I don't make many complete journeys of less than 5 minutes, but it does happen. If my journey involves changing trains then it's quite common that I spend no more than 5 minutes on a single train.

I understand what you're saying but how many elderly or infirm people travel during the peak (the period we're talking about lengthening services)? I can't imagine it's many and aside from those, most people should be able to walk a (relatively) short distance. Plus those who are only travelling for five minutes aren't going to be as concerned about getting a seat as those who are travelling for fifty five for example.

Take the example of a busy commuter line in South East London - the Hayes branch:

Between 0700 and 0800, there are five trains in the northbound direction from Hayes:

• 0713 to Charing Cross formed of 2 x 465 (8 coaches)
• 0723 to Cannon Street formed of 2 x 465 (8 coaches)
• 0733 to Charing Cross formed of 2 x 465 (8 coaches)
• 0743 to Cannon Street formed of 2 x 376 (10 coaches)
• 0753 to Charing Cross formed of 2 x 465 (8 coaches)

That's already a relatively frequent and long service. It would not be possible to push any more through London Bridge. So the only alternative is further lengthening. 12-car operations (if they aren't already possible) are due this year on the Hayes line and it really is the only viable solution in places like London Bridge where you have a big bottleneck.

The obvious issue with frequency on a mainline network especially somewhere like London is that in most cases there's a wide variety of traffic from many destinations. There are metro inner suburban, faster outer suburban, longer distance commuter and inter city services which all need to share the same terminus. Alter it and somebody loses out.

 

[LE Greys]

And have to rebuild every bridge and every platform out to Reading and Shenfield?

The Reading end is fine, that can accept trains up to 9ft7 in width and 13ft6 in height (it took Dreadnought coaches and Super Saloons after all). The Shenfield end might be a bit trickier, but I believe it is W10 loading gauge. If we do ever go for double-deck stock, a bit of size reduction might be possible, with W10 as the starting point.

 

[EM2]

I can't understand why you'd walk the full length of the train at *both* ends of the journey. Surely you walk to the point that's nearest to the exit at your destination?
For example, if I was getting a train from Victoria to Bromley South, I'd get on at the back. But for Swanley, I'd get on at the front.

 

[cle]

I think there is a little merit in providing some more 'country end' exits at terminus stations, but on the other hand, there isn't usually much going on. It's often railway land.

For example, a northern exit at Euston (which has long platforms and 11/12 car trains) - who would it benefit?

Far end of Liverpool Street perhaps? Kings Cross (northern bits will be entrance only) ? Waterloo has those subways for better dispersal.

London Bridge - will it be getting an eastern exit linking towards The Shard and Bermondsey Street? Might help spread things out.

But most people want the tubes, which aren't moving!

 

[hluraven]

London Bridge - will it be getting an eastern exit linking towards The Shard and Bermondsey Street? Might help spread things out.

London Bridge is getting a new main entrance at the Tooley Street (country) end as part of the redevelopment, so currently estimated at 2018.

 

[Pugwash]

And have to rebuild every bridge and every platform out to Reading and Shenfield?

Liverpool St - Shenfield has just has the wires re-done, had network rail actually thought ahead they could have raised the wires when they were re-doing them and replaced bridges etc on an on going basis as and when they come up for replacement.

 

[Wath Yard]

I didn't realise peak flows into London considered what the passenger wanted. I was under the impression it was more to do with getting vast numbers of people to work, rather than making life as comfortable and convenient as possible for the passengers - at enormous expense.

If elderly or infirm people struggle to walk the length of a 10-car train, it would make sense for them not to travel into central London during the peak. Then they wouldn't have to and they would be guaranteed a seat.

I'd be interested to know which London landmarks or office blocks should be demolished to make space for the extra platforms required at London termini to permit more frequent, but shorter, peak hour trains.

 

[jon0844]

That's unfair. I did not say that nothing should be done. The point I was making (perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently clear) was that, if you had the option to add a certain number of seats either by lengthening trains or by providing more frequent trains, then providing more frequent trains is going to be a far better option for most passengers, and I was querying why Network Rail doesn't seem to have given any thought to that option.

More frequent trains would be favoured by passengers, yes, but they have to understand that there are pathing issues. What about other trains that need the tracks that might not stop at your station?

Not only that, but many trains have different stopping patterns so it's not just as simple as running loads of trains back to back so people can turn up and go like a metro/tube service.

As for the walking time to go up/down a platform, perhaps one issue to look at in the future is wider platforms, or more entrances (or if practical, more ways to get on to a platform - e.g. Eurostar at St Pancras - without having to walk along it). With better markings and information about the train lengths, including where the trains stop (marked for passengers, not drivers) then you might improve things. Those people who might need more time to walk are also likely to be those who won't turn up 20 seconds before departure too.

The trains are important, but station design is probably as important even if people don't put much thought into them. The position of a waiting room, seating areas, a shop to buy a coffee should all be planned carefully.

Rebuilding stations and platforms might be expensive, and very difficult to do, but it could still be cheaper than doing work on the railway itself. Personally, I think longer trains will be more of a practical solution than trying to squeeze a lot more trains in. Signalling improvements will allow both, but with more trains you have problems when things go wrong. I'd lengthen first and THEN seek to run a more frequent service. There's also the saving on staff costs with longer trains too.

 

[EM2]

Liverpool St - Shenfield has just has the wires re-done, had network rail actually thought ahead they could have raised the wires when they were re-doing them and replaced bridges etc on an on going basis as and when they come up for replacement.

And the station buildings which are over the tracks (Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Ilford...)?

 

[jon0844]

Could the track be lowered there?

 

[jopsuk]

I'd have thought to do so far enough would be a very major engineering feat.

 

[Pugwash]

And the station buildings which are over the tracks (Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Ilford...)?

Originally Posted by Pugwash
Liverpool St - Shenfield has just has the wires re-done, had network rail actually thought ahead they could have raised the wires when they were re-doing them and replaced bridges etc on an on going basis as and when they come up for replacement.
And the station buildings which are over the tracks (Maryland, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Ilford...)?

Most of them look life expired, none of them as far as I can see are DDA compliant, seems a good time to get their replacement in the crossrail budget.

 

[Clip]

In whole scheme of the South East longer trains are better then more frequent trains.

For the stations closer to London isnt this higher frequency what The Mayor of London wants to do with LOROL services? People thought that was a good idea yet now for the whole of the south east they are worried about capacity at stations. That doesnt make sense.

 

[talltim]

Wasn't the double deck suggestion a joke?

The other problem with increasing frequency can be seen on cross country voyagers, twice the trains at half the lenght, however the more frequent services have attracted more more passengers and now the trains are very overcrowded.

 

[EM2]

Most of them look life expired, none of them as far as I can see are DDA compliant, seems a good time to get their replacement in the crossrail budget.

How much would that cost? Most of them are on road overbridges, pretty busy roads at that, so it's either drop the track level quite a bit, or rebuild with higher bridges, which entails traffic chaos while you do.
DDA compliance would easy enough to do, but not to make them suitable for bigger loading gauges.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can assure you that the newly introduced 12 car FCC services in the peak are packed solid from end to end with standees and sitting passengers. The reality of having to walk a few extra years to get onto a train with space is a fairly low disbenefit.

Longer trains are the only way forward , compared to very heavy infrastructure costs for multiple tracking etc.

I sometimes muse on my very crowded 319 into work (slows and fast) - that there are often more people standing on the train (one service) than certain other lines carry during the course of a whole day. A reality check is to watch any morning peak at say London Bridge (SE) or East Croydon.

 

[455driver]

But most people want the tubes, which aren't moving!

Have they gone in strike again?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Quite a lot of the inner suburban traffic on "national rail" are Oyster travellers abandoning the (often hellish)crowded tubes and doing the journey , where there is a choice , on "NR" - this applies to FCC into Moorgate , the services off the Wimbledon loop and FCC Midland into St Pancras from the Hendons , Harrow and Wealdstone and Mill Hills of this world. Although TfL provide a very frequent service , a combination of severe overcrowding on a small bore train , slow journey times and a possible alternative in a crowded , but bigger full size train like a 313 /319 / 350 is a trade off people are prepared to make.

 

[D6975]

A better option would be to run the line at 10-car lengths but with a limited-stop pattern west of Ascot (as well as east of Staines), calling only at Bracknell and Wokingham and with the smaller stations served by a half-hourly 5-car service (using the same stock) between Ascot and Reading. However, such a plan would be at best difficult to implement and at worst detrimental to the local communities with sizeable numbers of London commuters.

The Readings are due to go over to 10 car sets in the not so distant future.
The 458s are being strengthened to 5 cars using the redundant Gatwick express 8 car sets. All the 458s will become 5 car and a few 'new' 5 car sets will be created as well.