SW Post-2018 timetable

[SpacePhoenix]

How far past the western end of the platforms at Poole does the restricted power supply section start? I can't see clearly from Google Earth is any of the sidings at Wareham are electrified but if they are and the restricted electrical supply starts far enough west of Wareham (or could be boosted as far as Wareham), would 10 car to Wareham be viable (5car continues to Weymouth, 5 into a siding)?

 

[pompeyfan]

How far past the western end of the platforms at Poole does the restricted power supply section start? I can't see clearly from Google Earth is any of the sidings at Wareham are electrified but if they are and the restricted electrical supply starts far enough west of Wareham (or could be boosted as far as Wareham), would 10 car to Wareham be viable (5car continues to Weymouth, 5 into a siding)?

In theory you could, yes, but you don’t really need it. It would have to be exceptional circumstances for a 5 car to be insufficient west of Poole.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

In theory you could, yes, but you don’t really need it. It would have to be exceptional circumstances for a 5 car to be insufficient west of Poole.

How many meters west bound would the platforms need to be extended by to allow regular coupling and uncoupling at Poole? afaik the local council intends on building where the sidings (not the run-round ones) are now

 

[pompeyfan]

How many meters west bound would the platforms need to be extended by to allow regular coupling and uncoupling at Poole? afaik the local council intends on building where the sidings (not the run-round ones) are now

Not a clue. I don’t even know if Poole platforms are permissive off the top of my head.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Think it's further up this thread it was mentioned that coupling/uncoupling is only permitted at Poole in an emergency (I believe that it's something to do with the radius of the curves and getting the alignment of the couplings

 

[30907]

How many meters west bound would the platforms need to be extended by to allow regular coupling and uncoupling at Poole? afaik the local council intends on building where the sidings (not the run-round ones) are now

From a quick look on Google Earth you would need 5 or 6 20m coach lengths which would take you right over the reversing siding connection, which would need moving and the siding extending west (NNW to be pedantic).
I can't see any reason for doing this, as you can simply run a front portion up to Bournemouth.

 

[swt_passenger]

How many meters west bound would the platforms need to be extended by to allow regular coupling and uncoupling at Poole? afaik the local council intends on building where the sidings (not the run-round ones) are now

Can't you remember what the answer was last time you asked this in January? If you extend the platforms west the access to the stabling sidings had to be moved as well. You are trying to solve a non-existent problem, still.

 

[swt_passenger]

How far past the western end of the platforms at Poole does the restricted power supply section start? I can't see clearly from Google Earth is any of the sidings at Wareham are electrified but if they are and the restricted electrical supply starts far enough west of Wareham (or could be boosted as far as Wareham), would 10 car to Wareham be viable (5car continues to Weymouth, 5 into a siding)?

The published restriction in the sectional appendix is simply "Between Poole and Weymouth". Clearly at the Poole end of the route 10 car trains can enter the sidings. But Wareham is completely out of the question.

 

[DelW]

The extra 17 450s probably weren't ordered against 442 replacement so the idea of more 444s was never likely, they were more a growth build and to eliminate the 458s on the Reading line. However, as we know, what actually happened is that the 458s were reported to be considerably cheaper to lease than the 442s and Bournemouth depot could be downgraded. So the 17 450s weren't needed for their original purpose and could be used to eliminate 442s. It is likely that the 450s decision came before the 442 one.

Ah, OK, that does make more sense if it happened like that, thanks.

 

[DelW]

And Sundays, where there are more 444s available does see a significant number of 444s on the Portsmouth Direct, including plenty of 10 cars.

I haven't used the Direct on a Sunday for the last couple of years, but my recollection before that is of Sunday trains usually being 8 car 450s. However I'd only have been using the slows, so it's quite possible that the fasts were 444s without me noticing them.

 

[TEW]

I haven't used the Direct on a Sunday for the last couple of years, but my recollection before that is of Sunday trains usually being 8 car 450s. However I'd only have been using the slows, so it's quite possible that the fasts were 444s without me noticing them.

Sundays see all sorts of formations on both the fast and slow trains, it is a pretty even mix of 444s and 450s overall.

 

[NewtScaramanga]

Sunday is the only day where a train is nearly as competitive as the road journey. Road is still quicker though.

To be competitive the London - Guildford journey time needs to be 30', Guildford - Portsmouth needs to be around about 50-55', at the moment it fails abysmally.

 

[pompeyfan]

The line was built on the cheap, it goes round the hills of the South Dows rather than through them, you’re not going to get significantly quicker journeys unless the more severe speed restrictions are resolved but building tunnels, which the public will never allow. Even removing Fratton, Petersfield and Haslemere calls wouldn’t help to any meaningful purpose.

 

[nw1]

Given the re-branding does (I believe) not distinguish between 444 and 450 livery, might we see more mixed 444/450 combinations? i.e. on semi-fast services which need a length of 8 to 10 and where 444s might be desired, but only one is available. I can see peak Portsmouth via Eastleigh services, for example, as being good candidates for this.

Certainly in the old slammer days, CIG/VEP combinations were common round the peaks and on workings like the Sunday semi-fasts to Poole.

 

[nw1]

Sunday is the only day where a train is nearly as competitive as the road journey. Road is still quicker though.

To be competitive the London - Guildford journey time needs to be 30', Guildford - Portsmouth needs to be around about 50-55', at the moment it fails abysmally.

Can you get from London to Guildford in 30 minutes by road? By London, thinking the central area - City, Waterloo, Westminster etc.

Even in the early 80s I remember that taking for ever, certainly around an hour: there was dual carriageway all the way to the Kingston by-pass but then you crawled through Wandsworth, Clapham and Elephant and Castle. Must be worse these days I'd have thought; London is the one destination where IMX the train really wins out.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Can you get from London to Guildford in 30 minutes by road? By London, thinking the central area - City, Waterloo, Westminster etc.

Doubt it. It's usually at least 20 minutes just from Tolworth to Guildford - with a clear road at a quiet time.

 

[NewtScaramanga]

You two seem to be missing the point,the fact is that whilst Waterloo-Guildford in 30' is competitive, in fact unbeatable by road,the next section is most certainly beatable by at least 10-15'!

The former 81 headcodes used to do the trip Waterloo-Portsmouth Hbr in 1h 27, not what is now common 1h 33-1h 37 and that's if you're lucky and SN's lousy service doesn't get in the way.

I can do where I am on the coast to my parents in the Surrey Hill in the same time as the train takes to get to Guildford let alone parents home.

 

[TEW]

Given the re-branding does (I believe) not distinguish between 444 and 450 livery, might we see more mixed 444/450 combinations? i.e. on semi-fast services which need a length of 8 to 10 and where 444s might be desired, but only one is available. I can see peak Portsmouth via Eastleigh services, for example, as being good candidates for this.

Certainly in the old slammer days, CIG/VEP combinations were common round the peaks and on workings like the Sunday semi-fasts to Poole.

When planning train formations I would suggest that the fact the liveries do not match is not in any way a consideration.

 

[nw1]

When planning train formations I would suggest that the fact the liveries do not match is not in any way a consideration.

Not so sure given that you rarely see a 444/450 combination unless something goes wrong. That said, i think that has changed recently because (I think) some of the Sunday Poole semi-fasts might be booked them now in the summer months (at the moment the afternoon Poole semi-fasts all seem to be 5.444 from what I can make out, but I recall seeing two or three 444/450 combinations one Sunday at the end of May 2016).

I can see that from a marketing/branding POV they might want to keep trains 'clean' looking with a homogeneous livery, i.e. pure 444 or pure 450. That is what I presumed was the reason for 444/450 combinations (9 car, one of each) being much rarer than CIG/VEP combinations were in the slam-door days.

 

[Bessie]

Do you think the Dec 2018 SWR timetable change is a genuine consultation or more a "fait accompli"? My local station is Martins Heron on the Reading line and locals are up in arms as peak train service will be reduced from 4 trains to 2. The others will now run through non-stop. Only benefit I see is that Wokingham journey time will now be 1 hr 7 mins and not 1 hr 12 mins. Martins Heron is a busy commuter station and it had money spent on it to extend platform lengths to 10 carriages unlike other stations such as Winnersh and Earley.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you think the Dec 2018 SWR timetable change is a genuine consultation or more a "fait accompli"? My local station is Martins Heron on the Reading line and locals are up in arms as peak train service will be reduced from 4 trains to 2. The others will now run through non-stop. Only benefit I see is that Wokingham journey time will now be 1 hr 7 mins and not 1 hr 12 mins. Martins Heron is a busy commuter station and it had money spent on it to extend platform lengths to 10 carriages unlike other stations such as Winnersh and Earley.

Martins Heron calls vs Wokingham journytime is something that is acknowledged on the 24 Oct updated webpage. I guess if you haven't already commented online now is the time to do so...

 

[Kite159]

Seems odd a couple of Waterloo - Exeter services will call additionally at Whitchurch in the evenings, as it isn't the busiest of stations outside peak hours.

The Salisbury locals will no longer connect with a Reading local service at Basingstoke, but it will still connect with the XC service with only a small time penalty

 

[infobleep]

Looks like I will be out voted when it comes to even less trains calling at Clapham Junction in the morning and evening peak.it seems more commuters want more trains.

Once these extra commuters reach Waterloo, where do people think they will most likely go? Will most of the additional passengers use the Underground or in perticular, the Waterloo and City Line and do those lines have capacity to take more passengers from these extra trains. Or will a lot of people simply walk.

Obviously there might be those who are forced to go to Waterloo as there are even less opportunities to get to Clapham Junction.

To be fair to SWR, they are pleasing the majority of people and its difficult to argue against that.

I wonder if they would make any concessions elsewhere for Clapham Junction passengers. Maybe they could do cheaper fares if passengers agree to travel on a stopping service from Guildford or Surbtion.

 

[infobleep]

I will be responding to the South Western Railway consultation this week [i.e. by Friday], not that it will do much good I suspect. Given what I personally would like and yes I'm aware it's designed for the masses. I notice they say if they stop at Clapham Junction then it means 1 less train can run from Waterloo.

Currently between 17:00-18:00 hours there are 19 trains. In the new timetable it will be 22. Currently between 17-18:00 no trains depart Waterloo that stop at Clapham Junction. From Dec 2018, 1 train will. That suggests that currently it should be possible to stop more trains at Clapham Junction than they do.

They talk about their main line services using the fast lines

On the Fast Lines (these are the tracks on which our Mainline services from Portsmouth, Haslemere, Guildford, Exeter, Salisbury, Weymouth, Southampton, Basingstoke, Alton and Woking run)

https://www.southwesternrailway.com/~/media/pdfs/timetable-consultation/clapham-stops.pdf?la=en

What they don't tell people is that some of their stopping services also use the fast lines, abet they run fast to Surbiton.

What will happen when in 10 years time when the new trains they run are full, assuming passenger numbers continue to rise by 3% year on year? Do they have a plan to deal with it then? After all they won't be able to run any more trains under the current infrastructure, unless I suppose they extend the peak period even more. However they can only run 25 years at one hour and I don't know if they have flexibility to add any additional trains or whether if an hour is 25 then the previous can't be more than 22 and the following can't be more than 17.

If passenger numberrs ever fell, wold they consider cutting trains in order to stop at Clapham Junction or will passenger numbers never fall?

 

[swt_passenger]

What they don't tell people is that some of their stopping services also use the fast lines, abet they run fast to Surbiton.
What will happen when in 10 years time when the new trains they run are full, assuming passenger numbers continue to rise by 3% year on year? Do they have a plan to deal with it then?

Yes they do, its called Crossrail 2. It has been discussed a number of times. One of the key points is to move those very trains that you mention above, that currently weave from slow lines to fast at Surbiton, onto the slow lines all the way into Waterloo, allowing for more long distance trains.

The Wessex route study explains all this in detail, and also explains the only possible alternative to Crossrail 2, which is 5 tracking from Surbiton. Has also been discussed fairly regularly.

Lastly, we also discussed the recent SWR explanation of why the Clapham Junction calls will reduce in this thread about 3 weeks ago:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rom-clapham-to-guildford.157603/#post-3230259

We don't need it again so soon surely?

Clearly the consultation is really only about possible services on the Dec 2018 infrastructure, ie what there is today plus P20-24 in permanent use. So I'd suggest any ideas that fundamentally require the Crossrail 2 interventions to happen will just be ignored...

 

[infobleep]

Yes they do, its called Crossrail 2. It has been discussed a number of times. One of the key points is to move those very trains that you mention above, that currently weave from slow lines to fast at Surbiton, onto the slow lines all the way into Waterloo, allowing for more long distance trains.

The Wessex route study explains all this in detail, and also explains the only possible alternative to Crossrail 2, which is 5 tracking from Surbiton. Has also been discussed fairly regularly.

Lastly, we also discussed the recent SWR explanation of why the Clapham Junction calls will reduce in this thread about 3 weeks ago:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rom-clapham-to-guildford.157603/#post-3230259

We don't need it again so soon surely?

Clearly the consultation is really only about possible services on the Dec 2018 infrastructure, ie what there is today plus P20-24 in permanent use. So I'd suggest any ideas that fundamentally require the Crossrail 2 interventions to happen will just be ignored...

They could of course explain that to people in an FAQ. Maybe they will give good explanations in the final report and point out that slow trains also use the fast lines in the peaks.

As for Crossrail 2, whilst I'm sure that will happen, it is some decades away. So it will be some decades before the slow trains no longer use the fast lines in the peaks. They might find the need to do a major revise of the timetable before Crossrail 2 comes in. It was over 10 years since the last major timetable change. Over 10 years forward would take one to 2027-2030. I'm assuming current passenger growth continues. I doubt Crossrail 2 will be around by then. It might be being built though.

Of course there is a thread on here saying passenger numbers fell and indeed on South West Trains they did for Q1 and Q2 of 2017. If the numbers continued to fall, would they be able to cut peak services to introduce calls at Clapham Junction? I don't know what times of the day were experiencing the fall in passenger numbers though. It may have been off peak.

It would be Interesting to know what percentage of people didn't want Clapham Junction to be stopped at less frequently and yes I'm aware to run more trains, trains can't stop there. Still be interesting to know the stats though. I wonder how many wanted more trains and to stop at Clapham Junction? I know it's impossible currently but people can ask for the impossible.

The other thing I'd like to have seen is a fast or semifastt train between Surbtion and Woking between 7 and 8pm. I see however they are also cutting the number of semifast services from Surbtion to south of there full stop. The fast trains that would have called at Surbtion are possibly being replaced by Woking stopping trains that use to use the slow line to Surbtion but are now running fast to Surbtion instead.

One thing I or others might be able to get them to change is the minimum connection time at Surbtion. Currently it's 6 minutes. For passengers coming from stations like Wimbledon it looks like the cross platform or even same platform change in future would be 4 minutes, if they were wishing to go to Woking. I think 4 minutes is entirely reasonable, asuming everything is on time but then isn't this timetable more designed around things being on time?

One final point. If there is an increase in passenger numbers, does this include Surbtion? I see the number of trains from Surbtion to Waterloo in the morning will roughly stay the same. Obviously carriage lengthening will help to an extent.

 

[swt_passenger]

They could of course explain that to people in an FAQ. Maybe they will give good explanations in the final report and point out that slow trains also use the fast lines in the peaks.

I think you're flogging a dead horse. The services that run fast then slow from Surbiton or wherever are still fast services through Clapham Junction, and they aren't going to be moved anywhere else. I think you are introducing far too many 'what ifs' for a 2018 consultation.

 

[infobleep]

I think you're flogging a dead horse. The services that run fast then slow from Surbiton or wherever are still fast services through Clapham Junction, and they aren't going to be moved anywhere else. I think you are introducing far too many 'what ifs' for a 2018 consultation.

I maybe introducing what ifs but then the future timetable is based on what ifs. They think growth will increase for example. It could be argued its what if growth increases then we need to do this.

I know the reasons why they want to run more trains and know the impact but if there is anything they can do to offset that for passengers affected then that's sure got to be good. Rather than saying tough we are doing this and we are going to make no other changes that will benefit you.

Great Western Railway have cheaper fares for people who travel on their slower services from Paddington. Perhaps they could offer something similar for passengers from Clapham Junction. I do think the fate to Clapham Junction isn't value for money compared to the fare to Waterloo. The difference between them isn't that great.

Under the new timetable and if the 6 minute minimum connection time is kept, there will only be two train opportunities an hour from Clapham Junction to Woking.

Currently its 41 minutes to reach Woking but it would increase to 56 minutes, so an extra 15 minutes.

However if they reduced the minimum connection time at Surbtion to 4 minutes then passengers would have 4 journey opportunities an hour and the journey time would be 55 minutes. Not much faster due having to get a Hampton Court stoppers to connect with the Surbtion to Woking stopper. Still passengers would get 4 trains an hour rather than 2.

Bear in mind that off peak the journey time is 18 minutes so it's a difference of 38 minutes vers the existing 26 minutes.

I appreciate why they are wishing to increase the journey times but surely they could make fare adjustments if you travel on certain trains or amendments to the minimum connection times at some stations.

 

[infobleep]

In the National Audit Office Report on Govia Thameslink Railway, which is Evington discussed here, it had the following recommendation:

The Department should work more closely with Network Rail to understand
the impact of high frequency of services on congested parts of the network
on passenger disruption, and how to manage and recover from disruption
more quickly. This could enable:
• the Department to make more informed decisions about the trade-offs
between a high capacity but unreliable service, and a reduced capacity
but more reliable one;

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-thameslink-southern-and-great-northern-rail-franchise/

What are the chances of this having been carried out in respect of the timetable South Western Railway have proposed for next year?

If it has been carried out then great. It means they think it will be OK. If it hasn't been carried out, would such a study of the impact have changed anything?

 

[swt_passenger]

SWR's timetable changes are pretty trivial compared to the Thameslink and Southern changes going on at the moment, wouldn't you say?