Southeastern timetable changes for CrossRail

[NorthKent1989]

Has there been any changes announced? I did hear a while back that the CX to Dartfords via Woolwich could be extended to Gravesend in the peaks to feed CrossRail demand into Abbey Wood but not much more than that.

What changes could be made if any? I know CrossRail doesn’t intersect with SE as much as it does with GA and GWR but I would have thought there would be some changes.

 

[JonathanH]

Has there been any changes announced? I did hear a while back that the CX to Dartfords via Woolwich could be extended to Gravesend in the peaks to feed CrossRail demand into Abbey Wood but not much more than that.

What changes could be made if any? I know CrossRail doesn’t intersect with SE as much as it does with GA and GWR but I would have thought there would be some changes.

If there were going to changes, given the lead time involved, wouldn't they have been planned for the December 2019 timetable in the same way than London bus routes were changed in West London?

The bus plans were made in 2017.

Changes in bus services to support the Elizabeth line

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/ West London 140 curtailed to hayes and harlington (from harrow) X140 express 140 btween Heathrow amd harrow on the hill station 427 curtailed to Southall station (from uxbridge) 278 Heathrow to west ruislip 112 extended to osterley

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[NorthKent1989]

If there were going to changes, given the lead time involved, wouldn't they have been planned for the December 2019 timetable in the same way than London bus routes were changed in West London?

The bus plans were made in 2017.

Changes in bus services to support the Elizabeth line

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/elizabeth-line/ West London 140 curtailed to hayes and harlington (from harrow) X140 express 140 btween Heathrow amd harrow on the hill station 427 curtailed to Southall station (from uxbridge) 278 Heathrow to west ruislip 112 extended to osterley

www.railforums.co.uk

I thought as much, and since the South Eastern ITT has been effectively made redundant (some of the changes in there accounted for CrossRail like the London-Woolwich-Abbey Wood-Strood-Maidstone service)

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I don't think there is anything planned in the immediate future to be honest.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The changes slated for May 2022 to feed were:
- Earlier rounder trains from Bexleyheath and Sidcup to Abbey Wood (as early as 0450) to make connections.
- Changing the St Pancras to Maidstone West high speed services to go to Medway towns.
- Southeastern required to introduce services from London via Woolwich and Abbey Wood to Maidstone West, to make Maidstone have a Crossrail connection.

This is from memory, from 2016.

 

[Mikey C]

The changes slated for May 2022 to feed were:
- Earlier rounder trains from Bexleyheath and Sidcup to Abbey Wood (as early as 0450) to make connections.
- Changing the St Pancras to Maidstone West high speed services to go to Medway towns.
- Southeastern required to introduce services from London via Woolwich and Abbey Wood to Maidstone West, to make Maidstone have a Crossrail connection.

This is from memory, from 2016.

Would someone from Maidstone really take that circuitous route, just to get a Crossrail connection? I find it hard to imagine it would be well used

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Would someone from Maidstone really take that circuitous route, just to get a Crossrail connection? I find it hard to imagine it would be well used

Well if you assume a 707 pair (ASDO / SDO) was only stopping at Snodland, Strood, Gravesend, Greenhithe, Abbey Wood (as the ITT allows), one assumes a journey time of around 50 minutes if given a clean path. The journey time then if you give yourselves 5 minutes to change, is:
- Canary Wharf 67 minutes
- Liverpool Street 73 minutes
- Bond Street 81 minutes

If you go on the High Speed, you get to St Pancras in 51 minutes, but then have to go downstairs to the Tube for those. Or you go to Stratford, take the DLR one stop, then change again. I can imagine it is a better use of capacity and a better political gesture for Maidstone to have that, than a High Speed, and if the High Speed then is leaving Medway every 15 minutes it’s getting good connections at Strood or Gravesend onto the new Maidstone to London or the Thameslink, so getting to Abbey Wood and Docklands is easy.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The changes slated for May 2022 to feed were:
- Earlier rounder trains from Bexleyheath and Sidcup to Abbey Wood (as early as 0450) to make connections.
- Changing the St Pancras to Maidstone West high speed services to go to Medway towns.
- Southeastern required to introduce services from London via Woolwich and Abbey Wood to Maidstone West, to make Maidstone have a Crossrail connection.

This is from memory, from 2016.

Fairly sure that the ITT has been rendered redundant now though, there doesn’t appear to be any changes from 2022 from what I’ve looked at, that’s why I asked here to see if there was an update, I guess they’re going to wait until CrossRail is actually opened before making any changes, it has been delayed for years after all, and I would at least thought there would be an increase of trains from Gravesend to the Woolwich line for this purpose (boosted from the current 2tph to 4tph by extending the CX-Dartford service)

Would someone from Maidstone really take that circuitous route, just to get a Crossrail connection? I find it hard to imagine it would be well used

Provided that the service is semi fast to Abbey Wood then it would be quick I guess, I can’t imagine such a service calling at every single station

 

[brad465]

Well if you assume a 707 pair (ASDO / SDO) was only stopping at Snodland, Strood, Gravesend, Greenhithe, Abbey Wood (as the ITT allows), one assumes a journey time of around 50 minutes if given a clean path. The journey time then if you give yourselves 5 minutes to change, is:
- Canary Wharf 67 minutes
- Liverpool Street 73 minutes
- Bond Street 81 minutes

Would a 707 pair get that job if they don't get toilets fitted beforehand? Furthermore a 10 car does not fit into Maidstone West, and may even foul the points used by terminating trains to head back towards Strood (even if they don't, how often is it custom to use SDO at a terminating station?).

If Networkers were still around come its introduction, you could get an 8 car to do it if Snodland got extended to 8 car, and if there was a market for Barracks and New Hythe, they're 8 car capable already. If not a 5 car 707 would have to do it, and either join up/split with another portion somewhere on route, which adds time, or get 375s to do it if sending them on a Metro route is sensible enough. Failing that, whatever stock replaces the Networkers completely would I suspect be very capable of running a service like this should the service ever come into existence.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Would a 707 pair get that job if they don't get toilets fitted beforehand? Furthermore a 10 car does not fit into Maidstone West, and may even foul the points used by terminating trains to head back towards Strood (even if they don't, how often is it custom to use SDO at a terminating station?).

If Networkers were still around come its introduction, you could get an 8 car to do it if Snodland got extended to 8 car, and if there was a market for Barracks and New Hythe, they're 8 car capable already. If not a 5 car 707 would have to do it, and either join up/split with another portion somewhere on route, which adds time, or get 375s to do it if sending them on a Metro route is sensible enough. Failing that, whatever stock replaces the Networkers completely would I suspect be very capable of running a service like this should the service ever come into existence.

So assuming Snodland isn’t extended, which I find unlikely, your best bet remains stock that has ASDO/SDO. This therefore I think means you’re looking at 376s or 707s. In any event, you can either do a shunt at Maidstone West to not start back ahead of a signal if they’re genuinely short platforms, or find a method of operation. The shunt option seems plausible given the track layout and if I remember from last going over there in the front cab 2 weeks ago you have a shunt dummy to let you go back into the Strood-bound platform.

 

[brad465]

So assuming Snodland isn’t extended, which I find unlikely, your best bet remains stock that has ASDO/SDO. This therefore I think means you’re looking at 376s or 707s. In any event, you can either do a shunt at Maidstone West to not start back ahead of a signal if they’re genuinely short platforms, or find a method of operation. The shunt option seems plausible given the track layout and if I remember from last going over there in the front cab 2 weeks ago you have a shunt dummy to let you go back into the Strood-bound platform.

Ah I see, is a shunt dummy the same procedure used for peak terminators at Strood to/from London? Given 707s and 376s don't have gangways between units, they'll have to have a second man in the cab for this. The issue still remains though about lack of toilets, which would have to be rectified for a service of this duration. If it wasn't an issue 376s would have done the old CHX-Gillingham services regularly (I can't vouch for them doing relief work on it, but I don't recall them being routinely diagrammed). Southeastern would also need to have enough rolling stock resilience in their metro fleet to cope with sending 10 car trains out to Maidstone West and back, which, if pre-covid demand returned, would be a challenge. Was this to be a 1 or 2tph frequency do you or anyone else recall?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Ah I see, is a shunt dummy the same procedure used for peak terminators at Strood to/from London? Given 707s and 376s don't have gangways between units, they'll have to have a second man in the cab for this. The issue still remains though about lack of toilets, which would have to be rectified for a service of this duration. If it wasn't an issue 376s would have done the old CHX-Gillingham services regularly (I can't vouch for them doing relief work on it, but I don't recall them being routinely diagrammed). Southeastern would also need to have enough rolling stock resilience in their metro fleet to cope with sending 10 car trains out to Maidstone West and back, which, if pre-covid demand returned, would be a challenge. Was this to be a 1 or 2tph frequency do you or anyone else recall?

I think your supposition that a toilet is a ‘must’ is a bit much - if a company wants to send a non-toilet unit on a journey of any length, it will. If people are appraised that toilets are not available, then that’s fine.

As for Strood needing a Guard, that is a long-standing practice which if I recall (again, last went up there at the front about 2 weeks back) relates to the area between the two tracks on that small section of Medway Valley line having the third rail in (so you can’t get out there) and the other side being a sheer embankment. Maidstone West may not need this subject to a risk assessment.

As for the number of units, at this time there is obviously not going to be anything like 12tph via Bexleyheath as was planned, nor the same highest levels of frequency in some places. The rolling stock could cope, if everything is diagrammed properly.

 

[ScotGG]

How would there ever have been stock or stabling space for 12 tph via Bexleyheath?

Not sure why so many would go that line anyway as surely the aim is more tph from Kent via Abbey Wood to link to Crossrail?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

How would there ever have been stock or stabling space for 12 tph via Bexleyheath?

Not sure why so many would go that line anyway as surely the aim is more tph from Kent via Abbey Wood to link to Crossrail?

You say “How would there have been stock for 12tph via Bexleyheath” when in high peak pre-Covid we already had 12tph!

 

[brad465]

I think your supposition that a toilet is a ‘must’ is a bit much - if a company wants to send a non-toilet unit on a journey of any length, it will. If people are appraised that toilets are not available, then that’s fine.

By that logic 707s would be on the Tunbridge Wells' terminators already, as in theory this service is comparable to journey times between MDW and Abbey Wood, but they are not and don't appear to be in SE's hefty promotions of the 707s. I'm not suggesting your argument that they can do any service duration without toilets is wrong, but right now there appears to be no evidence that they'll operate longer services and/or have toilets fitted. It would also be a hard sell on a route that is used to having toilets on all services, whether by 395s or 375s (or 466s when they did the MV Line).

How would there ever have been stock or stabling space for 12 tph via Bexleyheath?

Not sure why so many would go that line anyway as surely the aim is more tph from Kent via Abbey Wood to link to Crossrail?

It sounds like this won't be reality now, and given Southeastern seem very reluctant to bring just their old off peak timetable back, let alone a full peak one, even though almost all covid restrictions are gone, I don't see any concerns about resourcing future service increases.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

By that logic 707s would be on the Tunbridge Wells' terminators already, as in theory this service is comparable to journey times between MDW and Abbey Wood, but they are not and don't appear to be in SE's hefty promotions of the 707s. I'm not suggesting your argument that they can do any service duration without toilets is wrong, but right now there appears to be no evidence that they'll operate longer services and/or have toilets fitted. It would also be a hard sell on a route that is used to having toilets on all services, whether by 395s or 375s (or 466s when they did the MV Line).


It sounds like this won't be reality now, and given Southeastern seem very reluctant to bring just their old off peak timetable back, let alone a full peak one, even though almost all covid restrictions are gone, I don't see any concerns about resourcing future service increases.

Well no, there isn’t necessarily following logic. The 707s have been designated for Metro work, and will be resourced from driver depots such as Grove Park, Slade Green and Dartford. Maidstone West services are sometimes done by Slade Green drivers; whereas Tunbridge Wells services are the preserve of Charing Cross, Grove Park, Tonbridge and Hastings. You would need to train many Tonbridge and Hastings drivers who have existing traction knowledge on 465 / 466 onto 707, which is not required as there are only 30 of them (and they didn’t get trained on 376s either); whereas there were 190 Networkers (?) and some crew from other depots who know 465s such as Ramsgate, Ashford, Dover, Faversham and Gillingham worked and do work other services including local trains between Orpington and Victoria via Beckenham. The logistics of this mean it is possible for a ‘707’ or ‘376’ to easily do a Maidstone West to Cannon Street train, but not a Tunbridge Wells to Charing Cross train. I hope this makes sense - and helps your knowledge.

Another point you missed regarding trains ‘needing’ toilets on longer distances, think of Maidstone West and Tunbridge Wells to London Bridge via Redhill which happened; and the wider Medway Valley line.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I would have thought they would have extended the CX-Dartford to Maidstone seeing as CX is the Interurban/mainline terminal rather than Cannon Street, which on the Dartford routes mostly does the rounders, it’s unclear on whether such a service would be peak only or both peak and off-peak?

I think they’ll most likely wait and see how popular CrossRail will be before they make any changes (and CrossRail will be very popular I would imagine from the get go) and as @brad465 said SE don’t seem to be reintroducing the off peak timetable any time soon, especially since it now nationalised.

 

[cle]

I would have thought they would have extended the CX-Dartford to Maidstone seeing as CX is the Interurban/mainline terminal rather than Cannon Street, which on the Dartford routes mostly does the rounders, it’s unclear on whether such a service would be peak only or both peak and off-peak?

I think they’ll most likely wait and see how popular CrossRail will be before they make any changes (and CrossRail will be very popular I would imagine from the get go) and as @brad465 said SE don’t seem to be reintroducing the off peak timetable any time soon, especially since it now nationalised.

It would make sense to me to take on the semi-fast Blackheath/Woolwich pattern, as was. But if running via Greeenwich, Cannon Street does make sense.

Another suggestion, if 'path-able' for either terminus after LB, would be taking on the Rainham TL, but to Maidstone. Sounds as if the Medways will get another HS1 service anyway.

And then another TL slot is freed up for something like a Bellingham frequency, or an Orpington/Sevenoaks via either route - not sure. Herne Hill sounds too difficult.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I would have thought they would have extended the CX-Dartford to Maidstone seeing as CX is the Interurban/mainline terminal rather than Cannon Street, which on the Dartford routes mostly does the rounders, it’s unclear on whether such a service would be peak only or both peak and off-peak?

I think they’ll most likely wait and see how popular CrossRail will be before they make any changes (and CrossRail will be very popular I would imagine from the get go) and as @brad465 said SE don’t seem to be reintroducing the off peak timetable any time soon, especially since it now nationalised.

It seems the most plausible as in the 2022 franchise spec / timetable pattern all trains to/from Woolwich line were Cannon Street. Absolutely no Charing Cross at all, any time of day. It would be sensible for it to be Cannon > Bridge > Lewisham > Charlton (deliberately avoided Blackheath and the traffic there) > Woolwich A > Abbey Wood > Dartford > Greenhithe > Gravesend > Strood > Snodland and Maidstone.

 

[brad465]

Well no, there isn’t necessarily following logic. The 707s have been designated for Metro work, and will be resourced from driver depots such as Grove Park, Slade Green and Dartford. Maidstone West services are sometimes done by Slade Green drivers; whereas Tunbridge Wells services are the preserve of Charing Cross, Grove Park, Tonbridge and Hastings. You would need to train many Tonbridge and Hastings drivers who have existing traction knowledge on 465 / 466 onto 707, which is not required as there are only 30 of them (and they didn’t get trained on 376s either); whereas there were 190 Networkers (?) and some crew from other depots who know 465s such as Ramsgate, Ashford, Dover, Faversham and Gillingham worked and do work other services including local trains between Orpington and Victoria via Beckenham. The logistics of this mean it is possible for a ‘707’ or ‘376’ to easily do a Maidstone West to Cannon Street train, but not a Tunbridge Wells to Charing Cross train. I hope this makes sense - and helps your knowledge.

Another point you missed regarding trains ‘needing’ toilets on longer distances, think of Maidstone West and Tunbridge Wells to London Bridge via Redhill which happened; and the wider Medway Valley line.

Thanks for this. One thing I mentioned before but forgot to recall was the issue of SDO use at the turnback/terminus station as a principle: is there currently a rule stating that trains have to be able to fit entirely in the platform of where they turn round, whether they have SDO or not? Either this is the case, or by coincidence every service currently in SE use happens to fit properly in the turnback station's platforms. If this rule exists it would have to be lifted before a 10 car 707 runs to Maidstone West, where I don't think the space for a platform extension exists; if it doesn't I imagine nothing else needs doing, other than deploying staff to MDW to check down trains before shunting if this was to be applied.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Thanks for this. One thing I mentioned before but forgot to recall was the issue of SDO use at the turnback/terminus station as a principle: is there currently a rule stating that trains have to be able to fit entirely in the platform of where they turn round, whether they have SDO or not? Either this is the case, or by coincidence every service currently in SE use happens to fit properly in the turnback station's platforms. If this rule exists it would have to be lifted before a 10 car 707 runs to Maidstone West, where I don't think the space for a platform extension exists; if it doesn't I imagine nothing else needs doing, other than deploying staff to MDW to check down trains before shunting if this was to be applied.

Charing Cross is an example. 12 car 465s were fitted with technology to allow them to release only 11 coaches at Charing Cross. The platform space didn’t exist, but the limiting factor was the signal. The signal is 12 coaches from the buffer stops.

If a train were to arrive at Maidstone West and stop at a red signal at, say, the Paddock Wood end but then it be ahead of the signal to go back to Strood, then you’d be in complex daily paperwork territory as you’d have at least 2 minutes of driver / signaller chatter. So, the reality is a small section of walkway, probably erected for a thousand pounds or three, at the point where the two middle cabs are to provide the piece of walking route so trains can proceed slightly towards Wateringbury and shunt back into the up platform, thus releasing the down platform for a train to arrive from Maidstone Barracks or wherever.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for this. One thing I mentioned before but forgot to recall was the issue of SDO use at the turnback/terminus station as a principle: is there currently a rule stating that trains have to be able to fit entirely in the platform of where they turn round, whether they have SDO or not? Either this is the case, or by coincidence every service currently in SE use happens to fit properly in the turnback station's platforms. If this rule exists it would have to be lifted before a 10 car 707 runs to Maidstone West, where I don't think the space for a platform extension exists; if it doesn't I imagine nothing else needs doing, other than deploying staff to MDW to check down trains before shunting if this was to be applied.

There’s no such blanket rule, I believe. 12 car trains terminate and reverse at Alton on the SWR network with the front of the train on departure well outside the station, I believe ASDO had to be specifically designed for it, so that it would switch properly when the driver changed ends.