That's true, but in this context its completely irrelevant
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Southern calling patterns
- Thread starter Schweir
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
miklcct
On Moderation
They can have services to more destinations, for example, Redhill is a change point for the North Downs Line, and Redhill - Tonbridge Line, enabling more journey opportunities to Kent and Surrey, while they still have the other 5 fast services available if they don't want to go there.
Bishopstone
Established Member
I could just about accept a Clapham Junction call on the Brighton/Gatwick Express, and I get the logic. But definitely not East Croydon, which already enjoys an excellent service frequency to London terminals, Gatwick, and Brighton.
I scratch my head somewhat, because I believe it’s fair to say that the consensus on Stansted Express is that it takes far too long and stops too often (hence the stalled proposals to quadruple the Lee Valley); but the consensus on Gatwick Express is that it’s too fast, should stop at useful intermediate stations, and indeed no airport ‘express’ is necessary at all.
If Victoria-Gatwick-Brighton was a Southern-only corridor, then - I hardly dare to ask - where do people envisage the services calling, south of the airport? Because when the pleading for Burgess Hill and Three Bridges is answered, and you’ve already added Croydon and Clapham (we’ll ignore Redhill for the moment!), the Brighton-Victoria journey time isn’t going to look much like the Brighton Belle.
I scratch my head somewhat, because I believe it’s fair to say that the consensus on Stansted Express is that it takes far too long and stops too often (hence the stalled proposals to quadruple the Lee Valley); but the consensus on Gatwick Express is that it’s too fast, should stop at useful intermediate stations, and indeed no airport ‘express’ is necessary at all.
If Victoria-Gatwick-Brighton was a Southern-only corridor, then - I hardly dare to ask - where do people envisage the services calling, south of the airport? Because when the pleading for Burgess Hill and Three Bridges is answered, and you’ve already added Croydon and Clapham (we’ll ignore Redhill for the moment!), the Brighton-Victoria journey time isn’t going to look much like the Brighton Belle.
Surely people have adapted by now to the lack of direct trains from Clapham Junction to Brighton, and know to change at East Croydon or Gatwick Airport. Even then, they still run on Sundays, with the two coastway routes getting a lower frequency of service. With most people using journey planners on phones to look up times, it can't really be a problem.
It wouldn't add more than 120 seconds to journeys to call at both, and less if only at one. If you are really that desperate to keep the journey time exactly the same, you could always cut a few intermediate stops south of Gatwick.
Simply, the Airports all want 1-stop shops to Central London (don't we all) but they're actually quite a poor utilisation of resources and capacity. So rail companies and most passengers not heading between the airport and a central London terminus want the trains to stop elsewhere. The StanEx stops anyway because it can't get past the slower trains, while the GatEx is non-stop because something had to run through Clapham Jn non-stop to achieve the number of trains required into Victoria so it may as well have been the GatExs.
By this argument you could cut the service to a barebones trunk and shuttles only on branches, and then tell people they should adapt to it. There is demand enough for people from Brighton to change at Clapham Junction to run such a service if it can reasonably be pathed.
120 Seconds per stop - 60 second dwell and 30 seconds extra in the SRT either side for braking and accelerating out again. The rounding might mean you only cost 90 seconds for one of them.
It can't reasonably be pathed though, because separate half hourly trains to the two coastways is better in the round than running combined trains to those routes. It just happens that Brighton doesn't get 8tph any more from London as a result.
The current Brighton line timetable, other than southbound during the morning peak, is fairly well balanced in my opinion.
If it can't be pathed then fine, something needs to give and Brighton-Victoria is the one that draws the short straw. That's reasonable. It was more the 'people should have adapted so we should just accept it and move on' logic that I was questioning, as that's when operational efficiency begins to dominate passenger demand, when passenger demand should determine operations, with a bit of iterative feedback.
I'm pretty sure GX is timed for 31 mins Gatwick-Victoria while the Southern services that only stop at CJ and EC are timed for 33 mins.
Yes, I may not be articulating it well but I guess the railway can measure from ticket sales whether there is untapped demand between Clapham Junction (and indeed South West London as a whole) and Brighton because of the lack of direct trains by comparing receipts before and after the change, and indeed whether there are good volumes on a Sunday.
GatEx has an extra 2 mins diamond/performance time approaching Clapham Junction to account for it not stopping.
(For forum rules: CLJ - Clapham Junction, GTW - Gatwick Airport, SRS - Selhurst.)
WTT Gatex https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L47590/2023-03-29/detailed is 30.5' including <2.5> app CLJ, (0.5)&<1> App, GTW, so 26.5' actual SRT
WTT Coastway https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L46190/2023-03-29/detailed is 32.5' including <0.5> app CLJ, (0.5) app SRS, <0.5> app Windmill Bridge Jn so 31' actual SRT.
I couldn't see anything in the rules requiring the non-stop train to have the extra <2> at CLJ and <1> and GTW so they may be purely discretionary but I'm no longer a planner so I may not be aware of a later change that didn't make it into the latest publicly available rules. RTT may also not be displaying the allowances exactly as they are applied in TPS for data feed reasons.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
Would you say the same if every train from Seaford stopped at Southease, even though there was no passengers to pickup?
What many are wanting is a straight through service from Brighton to Clapham Junction without having to change trains at Haywards Heath, Gatwick or East Croydon. That would be like someone wanting the return of the daily Seaford to London Victoria service. It is not going to happen as a) the paths are not there and b) there is not the stock to implement such a service.
For me personally living in Seaford, it is easier to travel to Brighton by bus, which I can get at the bottom of my road. Then travel up from Brighton. Yes, unless getting the 05:23 from Brighton I would have to change trains as I mentioned above and those trains possibly would have come from Ore, Hastings or Eastbourne and if I travelled up by train from Seaford station I could have changed to one of these services at Lewes. But to get to Seaford station, I would have either had to have walked about 1.5 miles or have got the bus to Seaford Station. If I am getting the buss to Seaford station, then I might as well stay on the bus and travel to it's destination of Brighton Station.
Let's look at a bit of history. The origins of Gatwick Express was that it was a none stop service from London Victoria to Gatwick Airport. The fast services from Brighton which where run by BR Southern rail at the time, if my memory serves me correctly left Brighton and the next stop was East Croydon, before reaching London Victoria. For people to get to Gatwick Airport from Brighton, you would have had to get on a service that stopped at every single station to Gatwick Airport, much as some of the Thameslink services do today.
Now to services to today. Thameslink has pretty much taken over the stopping services into London, however if you want London Victoria though, then you need to change from Thameslink to a Southern service at Haywards Heath, Gatwick or East Croydon. So which ever way you look at the problem, you are going to have to change trains somewhere.
However, if paths where available during peak hours periods, then I would have at least two services using 8 coach Thameslink class 700 trains travelling from Brighton to London Victoria and vice versa from London Victoria to Brighton, that stopped Preston Park, Hassocks, Burgess Hill, Wivelsfield, Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Redhill, East Croydon, Clapham Junction and London Victoria.
Yes, in my idea above I have missed out Gatwick Airport purposely as you have Gatex and Southern services that travel into London Victoria. You also have other Thameslink services that travel to Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough that can take you to London Bridge etc......
Minstral25
Established Member
It was previously shown pre-Covid that there is a reasonable flow of traffic from Brighton/Haywards Heath to Redhill, which mostly uses Car. There are plenty of offices in Redhill and Reigate that people from the South use, but the interchange and unreliable services by train mean most use car. Possibly offices may be less attractive now with Work from Home.
I always liked the idea of extending North Downs to Brighton, combining with Tonbridge Services at Redhill. Never happen though but would solve the Kent issue to Gatwick that Kent councillors seem to think is important.
On Calls at Clapham Junction for Brighton trains, it is Airport putting pressure on DfT to ensure a fast train rather than inability to stop because of paths - suspect that has improved opportunity with the Victoria area re-signalling too.
Yea but what is capacity here? Potential.
But historically, 4tph GatEx nearly empty was better path capacity, but definitely not well used.
So dropping a path, evening out gaps and having say 3tph extra which called CJ/EC would arguably be better capacity, for humans Vs numerical paths - than underused 4tph.
That does seem right. When the departures from Victoria were xx00, xx02, xx06, xx15, xx17, xx23 etc in the 2000s, it was pretty obvious that this worked only with the xx00 and xx15 running fast, so the xx02 and xx17 could stop behind. That seems less of a problem now with the xx59, xx05, xx08, xx16, xx20, xx24 pattern.
I agree, as it gives a purpose to running an extra service to Brighton and the local stops, avoiding the issues about running Brighton to London services via Redhill, but the process for it to happen makes it quite unrealistic.
It would be interesting to know whether a theoretical extension of Tonbridge / Reading services to Brighton would get anywhere near covering the extra costs if run through industry software. I imagine it wouldn't, although it would help local connectivity and make Redhill and Reigate more realistic working places for people from Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and Brighton.
WizCastro197
Established Member
If I am completely honest, I don't think many people will notice that it takes 10 more minutes, and no one seems to care on Sundays when Portsmouth and Bognor trains are routed via Redhill. At Redhill it never is just 'a few people', as it serves a large enough area (including areas in Earlswood, Tonbridge line included) to justify an inclusion. However, Victoria trains from Portsmouth at Redhill often turn up full (understandably so), and personally I'd rather sit on a slightly slower service that will take a few minutes longer if it means a quieter train. I can see the same being done with Brighton trains, in the up direction.
I'm not sure how 'no one seems to care' can be measured. I'm sure they would prefer a direct and faster service if it was on offer.
This is of course the issue. Just as people from the southern end of the Brighton line want a faster journey, so do people in Redhill so, even if you personally choose a slower train, other people don't, and then complain about crowding on the fast service to Victoria.
(Regarding the common practice of turning Southern services short at Fareham due to late-running)
Sorry, I realise this is a bit of an old thread but been pointed in this direction from the similar current Brighton thread.
I agree that neither Southern service should terminate short of Southampton. Both are popular.
However, turnaround times, and thus reliability, could be improved by interworking the Victoria and the Brighton, sending to the units to the sidings during the layover if need be. One of these in particular has, or used to have in the 2004-19 period, something like an 8-min turnaround (IIRC) which seems a bit short for journeys of this length.
The recent article in Modern Railways indicates that Southern are looking at lopping the Victoria to Southampton service short to deal with a number of issues on the West Coastway.
Firstly, the possibility of an enhanced timetable further east in Southern's core territory using the units and costs released.
Secondly, an improvement in punctuality of services at Horsham.
Thirdly, the lack of a robust turn round for this service.
Brighton to Southampton would continue.
Not really sure where the place to terminate it would be - Fareham preserves the connections but isn't ideal. Chichester is the most obvious place given the turn back siding.
Firstly, the possibility of an enhanced timetable further east in Southern's core territory using the units and costs released.
Secondly, an improvement in punctuality of services at Horsham.
Thirdly, the lack of a robust turn round for this service.
Brighton to Southampton would continue.
Not really sure where the place to terminate it would be - Fareham preserves the connections but isn't ideal. Chichester is the most obvious place given the turn back siding.
I agree that there is less need for the EC stop in GX than the Clapham stop, but: could you ever do East Croydon to Brighton in 35 mins?
Looking at the 1982 timetable, there was an hourly non stop (the old '4') at xx23 arriving xx06 the following hour (58 mins from Victoria), so 43 mins.
Last edited:
While the turnround is short, I'm fairly sure there isn't the gap to shunt the unit at Southampton Central.
Diverting it to Portsmouth Harbour would be the most obvious solution if you can juggle everything to get a platform. It's a less convenient change at Fratton but at least it's better than Chichester as it maintains the London service at stations between Chichester and Havant.
Not good IMO. For one thing there is the direct Gatwick link (the lower fare for this route versus going via Clapham is a key advantage) and for another thing you're cutting the Southampton-Havant service (and thus connections up the Portsmouth Direct) to 1tph.
I'd hope if this is done, that:
a) there is a good Gatwick connection (10 mins or less, and fast at least Arundel-Horsham) at Barnham off the Southampton-Brighton, and
b) SWR use the released path to insert their long-promised Southampton-Portsmouth semi-fast, which would partially compensate for the lost connectivity as a result of cancelling the Victoria.
Ah ok, fair enough.
Mind you @JonathanH said the issue was on the West Coastway, so any fixes would presumably need to be east of Portsmouth.
If the issue is just the reliability one at the Southampton end, then I guess putting up with the short turn around time and the risk of terminating short at Fareham is better than removing the service altogether!
Last edited:
Personally, I think the most likely outcome may be the removal of splitting at Horsham, with one Arun Valley service going complete to Portsmouth and the other to Bognor. Then perhaps three trains an hour from Brighton, one each running to Southampton, Portsmouth and Bognor, with the Southampton being faster between Brighton and Angmering than the other two.
Yes, it would make the service to Chichester less frequent and slower, but there would be more reliability and less time at Horsham.
Yes, it would make the service to Chichester less frequent and slower, but there would be more reliability and less time at Horsham.
The issues being on the West Coastway are dealt with by giving it a longer turnround at Portsmouth without reducing service to the West Coastway stations (Solent stations would have at least other options).
The better solution is, of course, to just get it running on time. 8 minutes isn't massive but plenty of services turnround in less.
Would this involve all services calling at Billingshurst, Pulborough and Arundel (with Christs Hospital and Amberley presumably being restricted to the Bognor)?
If there were good connections at Barnham between Arun Valley and Brighton to Hampshire services, it might work OK. But I still think the loss of the direct Gatwick link from the Solent would not be popular.
Clearly this is only speculation but yes, those calls would have to be preserved.
I think Southern would be quite keen to remove the Horsham splits, although running 8-car beyond Chichester isn't very efficient use of rolling stock either.
Given the Seaford service is a stopper anyway, they may as well all stop there, unless Seaford turnaround times are such that the stop is not possible in both directions. For one thing, it's a useful station for walking the South Downs Way.
It's the same sort of concept as making all Poole stoppers call at Beaulieu Road, which is what IMV they should do.
Except that I suspect the demand for a direct Brighton-Clapham service is considerably greater than a direct Seaford-London service! Historical precedent too: direct semi-fast or fast Clapham-Brighton services, running at least hourly, existed in the 1960s, and from at least 1981 to before Covid.
Sussex Ben
Member
In 2007 35/36 mins off peak looked to be the norm. Not sure how long ago that would have started, but it lasted until the Brighton express was axed in favour of extending Gatwick Express to Brighton (with fewer stops and longer journey times).
- Status