SW Post-2018 timetable

[SpacePhoenix]

There are some lengthy signal sections beyond Totton and when you throw in the often erratic nature of XC services it can make things tricky.

Could some of the lengthy signal sections be halved?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Probably, but it's going to be expensive if you do it outside of the resignalling work, that will eventually see Eastleigh panel being absorbed by the ROC at Basingstoke.

You should see some signalling improvements when it is done, whenever that maybe. I don't know which way the next expansion of the ROCs capabilities will be!

 

[DaveHarries]

Had a look at the WoE timetable. Looks an improvement with a number of trains between Westbury, Yeovil PM and London Waterloo so not bad on that one IMO. Interesting to note the later service from London Waterloo going all the way to Salisbury.

Dave

 

[embers25]

Had a look at the WoE timetable. Looks an improvement with a number of trains between Westbury, Yeovil PM and London Waterloo so not bad on that one IMO. Interesting to note the later service from London Waterloo going all the way to Salisbury.

Dave

WoE is great if you want Waterloo, crap if you want Woking or Clapham in peak and also will never keep time as the extra minutes right now provide essential robustness that lets trips catch up the odd minute to ensure they are on time on the single track bits.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Have any of you on the WoE line had a look at the connections at Woking off of the EXD service?

The trouble is that you have had it too easy and too good for too long.

 

[TEW]

Have any of you on the WoE line had a look at the connections at Woking off of the EXD service?

The trouble is that you have had it too easy and too good for too long.

There would be a good connection at Basingstoke for Clapham Junction. A 7 minute connection in the up direction on to a service non stop to Clapham Junction, and a 13 minute connection in the down direction from a service non stop from Clapham Junction.

 

[embers25]

There would be a good connection at Basingstoke for Clapham Junction. A 7 minute connection in the up direction on to a service non stop to Clapham Junction, and a 13 minute connection in the down direction from a service non stop from Clapham Junction.

Not to Woking there isn't as you have to get the semi fast as WoE provided most of the fasts but not any more.

 

[TEW]

Not to Woking there isn't as you have to get the semi fast as WoE provided most of the fasts but not any more.

In the proposed timetable all the Off Peak WoE trains will still call at Woking. Woking-Basingstoke also gets an extra train an hour as the Southampton Semi-Fast train will call at Woking as well as the Portsmouth via Eastleigh train. I haven't looked at the peak timetable in detail but WoE trains already mostly skip Woking and Clapham Junction in the peak.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Looks like there's only a couple of mins difference in time taken for Poole-Bournemouth between trains that are fast between the 2 and trains that also stop at Parkstone and Branksome so why can't all trains passing between Poole and Bournemouth also stop at both Parkstone and Branksome?

 

[embers25]

In the proposed timetable all the Off Peak WoE trains will still call at Woking. Woking-Basingstoke also gets an extra train an hour as the Southampton Semi-Fast train will call at Woking as well as the Portsmouth via Eastleigh train. I haven't looked at the peak timetable in detail but WoE trains already mostly skip Woking and Clapham Junction in the peak.

In peak all Exeter/Honiton-London trains call at Woking in both directions currently. The proposal changes that to none. The whole point to me is that unlike the rest of the country where there are significant issues, pre-Waterloo closure, SWT long distance was one of the most reliable and a few minor tweaks would have made it about as good as it could've gotten. The SWR proposals ruin connectivity cutting numerous through or short connection links, have huge impacts on network resilience, assume other operators will change their times and don't really enhance anywhere except the additional earlier Pompey fasts. The whole thing is a recipe for complete chaos during the smallest amount of disruption and a consequential loss in passengers. Add to this the fact SWR have already added in numerous severe restrictions on advance availability on the quiet and so far we have the tip of the iceberg that is the problem when First are allowed to play trains...screw passengers, screw maintenance and paper over the cracks.

 

[Joe Paxton]

... Add to this the fact SWR have already added in numerous severe restrictions on advance availability on the quiet ...

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[JonathanH]

Could you elaborate on that?

Isn't that what South West Trains did? Introduce 'reservations' on the Waterloo to Reading line in the peak and then ensure that there are no quotas for advance purchase tickets (e.g. no through advances onto GWR West services)?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Waterloo - Reading has never had reservations.

You'd only get reservations on Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth, Waterloo - Sarum - Exeter and occasionally Waterloo - Portsmouth and when it ran Brighton - Reading.

 

[A Challenge]

I don't think the Weybridge to Virginia Water Shuttle is a good idea - It means more people will go from Addlestone/Chertsey via Weybidge as there is no direct services (connections permitting!)

 

[greatkingrat]

But it is already quicker to go from Addlestone and Chertsey to Waterloo via Weybridge than to stay on the direct service stopping everywhere.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think the Weybridge to Virginia Water Shuttle is a good idea - It means more people will go from Addlestone/Chertsey via Weybidge as there is no direct services (connections permitting!)

I do wonder what percentage of all passengers today sit on the through train via Hounslow all the way? I bet it's not many to be displaced onto trains at Weybridge who weren't already doing it.

The alternative would be depriving one the much busier Windsor or Reading services of having 4tph. So, for Reading services, there'll be more space for Chertsey/Addlestone passengers to change onto (for those that already do)

 

[nw1]

I do wonder what percentage of all passengers today sit on the through train via Hounslow all the way? I bet it's not many to be displaced onto trains at Weybridge who weren't already doing it.

The alternative would be depriving one the much busier Windsor or Reading services of having 4tph. So, for Reading services, there'll be more space for Chertsey/Addlestone passengers to change onto (for those that already do)

I remember seeing an old timetable from 1972 ages ago. There the pattern was to split the Windsor service at Staines (I think).
If the 'new' Windsor service (the one they're introducing, running via Hounslow) was to run limited stop NE of Staines (e.g. something like Vauxhall,CJ,Hounslow,Feltham,Staines only) then it might a) allow time to split at Staines without making the Windsor journey too slow and b) make the journey attractive for Chertsey passengers to go that way to London?

 

[JonathanH]

Waterloo - Reading has never had reservations.

You'd only get reservations on Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth, Waterloo - Sarum - Exeter and occasionally Waterloo - Portsmouth and when it ran Brighton - Reading.

A lot of trains on 'inner' routes are marked as 'reservations available' in order to prevent people from using Advance Purchase tickets on them to destinations further afield

eg this one http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W35372/2017/10/16/advanced

You are right in saying that you can't get reservations on these routes.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

I do wonder what percentage of all passengers today sit on the through train via Hounslow all the way? I bet it's not many to be displaced onto trains at Weybridge who weren't already doing it.

The alternative would be depriving one the much busier Windsor or Reading services of having 4tph. So, for Reading services, there'll be more space for Chertsey/Addlestone passengers to change onto (for those that already do)

I don't know about passengers from west of Feltham but I certainly take the Hounslow stopper from Feltham in the peaks so I can get a seat. I just bring a good book with me. However hopefully with 4 Windsors and hour I might still get a seat on the semi fasts.

 

[30907]

I remember seeing an old timetable from 1972 ages ago. There the pattern was to split the Windsor service at Staines (I think).
If the 'new' Windsor service (the one they're introducing, running via Hounslow) was to run limited stop NE of Staines (e.g. something like Vauxhall,CJ,Hounslow,Feltham,Staines only) then it might a) allow time to split at Staines without making the Windsor journey too slow and b) make the journey attractive for Chertsey passengers to go that way to London?

But isnt the problem specifically that the total number of trains through Egham cannot be increased because of the level crossing?

 

[Ianno87]

But isnt the problem specifically that the total number of trains through Egham cannot be increased because of the level crossing?

Plus you can't run a train via Hounslow that fast without shooting down the stopper in front. And sitting in the platform at Staines for 7 minutes or more to split/join the train isn't remotely practical with the number of services running through.

 

[embers25]

Could you elaborate on that?

No unfortunately as I don't wan to make the process any easier for them.

 

[HowardGWR]

On the WOE, I and others also commented on another forum (Discussion I think) about the total omission of the CLJ stop for pax west of Salisbury. A journey we make about twice a year is to Gatwick. This involves but one change at CLJ at present (loaded down with cases of course). We will now have to change at an extra intermediate station both ways and noted a very poor half hour extra to do so. A colleague who lives at Overton pointed out he would gain, as his train now would go through to Clapham Jcn. Surely the majority of pax for Gatwick vastly exceed those from villages such as Overton?

It seems to be more to do with operational convenience than consideration for those who pay for the salaries and wages that results in this proposal from 2018.

 

[nw1]

Plus you can't run a train via Hounslow that fast without shooting down the stopper in front. And sitting in the platform at Staines for 7 minutes or more to split/join the train isn't remotely practical with the number of services running through.

Fair point, but would it actually be '7 minutes or more'? From my observations of 444s splitting and joining at Southampton the whole procedure seems to take no more than a minute, meaning the front portion could presumably get away in 2-3 minutes (start process 30 secs or so after arriving, 1 min for splitting, another min for embarking/disembarking) and then the rear three minutes later, i.e. do the whole thing in 5-6 minutes.

However it's a fair point that even 5-6 minutes would be too much. Presumably in the old days they could get away with it as less trains were using the station.

 

[nw1]

.. and presumably that's also why the 'shuttle' isn't running all the way to Staines.

 

[nw1]

Fair point, but would it actually be '7 minutes or more'? From my observations of 444s splitting and joining at Southampton the whole procedure seems to take no more than a minute, meaning the front portion could presumably get away in 2-3 minutes (start process 30 secs or so after arriving, 1 min for splitting, another min for embarking/disembarking) and then the rear three minutes later, i.e. do the whole thing in 5-6 minutes.

However it's a fair point that even 5-6 minutes would be too much. Presumably in the old days they could get away with it as less trains were using the station.

Actually it seems this is the case... looking at Southern as an example of a TOC which does split/join reguarly, at both Haywards Heath and Redhill there seems to be a three-minute 'penalty' (front portion) for the split, which would equate to 4 minute total stop for the front portion and 7 minutes for the rear portion as the standard stopping time is one minute.

Three additional minutes (on top of the normal stopping time for non-dividing trains) seems to be an awfully long time to allow for the split - and significantly longer than it actually takes in practice IMX (i.e the delay incurred to the passenger to disembark due to keeping the doors locked during the split seems to be about one minute). Is this longer than under BR days? ISTR under BR there were examples where the front portion could be away in 2 mins and the rear portion in 5; if anything stock with central locking ought to be able to do the whole thing more quickly.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I hope they don't stop journeys on the xx20 from Waterloo to Exeter for passengers travelling to Woking. I take it regularly before changing to the Alton line, I don't want to get the xx23 the whole way from Waterloo because it's almost always a horrid 450, the xx15 and xx30 is too, and even if it isn't I prefer 159s to 444s anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

Actually it seems this is the case... looking at Southern as an example of a TOC which does split/join reguarly, at both Haywards Heath and Redhill there seems to be a three-minute 'penalty' (front portion) for the split, which would equate to 4 minute total stop for the front portion and 7 minutes for the rear portion as the standard stopping time is one minute.

Three additional minutes (on top of the normal stopping time for non-dividing trains) seems to be an awfully long time to allow for the split - and significantly longer than it actually takes in practice IMX (i.e the delay incurred to the passenger to disembark due to keeping the doors locked during the split seems to be about one minute). Is this longer than under BR days? ISTR under BR there were examples where the front portion could be away in 2 mins and the rear portion in 5; if anything stock with central locking ought to be able to do the whole thing more quickly.

Spot on. People always think of splitting time as the time taken for the first portion to depart, but in train planning terms it's the time for the *second* portion to depart that's key (i.e. a service headway behind the first), which people tend to forget.

Then you need a headway before and after the whole train and suddenly you're needing a c.15 minute gap in other services to allow one train to split.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Spot on. People always think of splitting time as the time taken for the first portion to depart, but in train planning terms it's the time for the *second* portion to depart that's key (i.e. a service headway behind the first), which people tend to forget.

Then you need a headway before and after the whole train and suddenly you're needing a c.15 minute gap in other services to allow one train to split.

Ha. Trains frequently have faster turnaround times than splitting times! Ridiculous.

 

[Ianno87]

Ha. Trains frequently have faster turnaround times than splitting times! Ridiculous.

How is that 'ridiculous'? Turning round is pretty simple. Driver switches off, gets out, walks to other end, gets on, switches on and away you go.

Splitting and joining involves clear un-rushed communication between 2 or more members of staff, management of passengers, together with the same switching on/off of the train.