Waterloo interworking patterns (non-suburban) over the years

[nw1]

It's interesting to note that over the years there seem to have been differing policies to route interworking at Waterloo on the non-suburban routes (suburban always seem to have interworked, presumably due to the high frequency and need to reduce platform occupancy) with interworking going 'in' and 'out' of fashion at various times. It would be interesting to see if there are any particular reasons.

Obviously interworking is often necessary in the peaks (when we had a peak - this post solely relates to the period 1982* to 2019, i.e. the 'normal' railway) due to differing peak schedules, need to deploy the highest-density stock on high-demand services, and to reduce platform occupancy. So interworking in the peaks was normal in this entire period.

(*82/83 was the first timetable I was exposed to)

However some years - notably in recent times, since the introduction of the Desiros - there seemed to be considerable off-peak interworking and seemingly 'random' trips to and from Clapham Yard in the middle of the day. I can't remember which year it was but there was a recent CWN I saw which showed this, perhaps 2018? I'm fairly sure I've noted this in other CWNs from relatively recent years, too.

Also in the nineties, it was commonplace for the Basingstoke and Alton lines to interwork, and there seemed to be quite a bit of irregularity in 1989 too (based on the '93' Waterloo-Southampton workings) but I didn't study the workings in great detail that year.

By contrast, in timetables such as 1982-83 or 1983-84, and the final slam-door timetables in 2004, most of the off-peak was fairly predictable with stock from one route going out on the same route. Early 2004 was particularly notable for this (I have obtained a CWN from this rather fascinating transitional period, from the Modern EMUs group at groups.io) while the 1980s examples had a few 'swaps' during the day.

(Also of note is how shortening to 4-car off-peak was commonplace in the 80s and 90s but had been more or less eliminated by early 2004, but this has been discussed before so don't want to focus on this).

So basically much of the 'Desiro' era seems to have had more irregularity, from what I gather, compared to the slam-door era. Wondering if there is a specific reason for this?

 

[MotCO]

Not spoken with any particular knowledge, but I suspect there are a number of factors behind these changes:

1. Train frequencies have improved over recent years (pre Covid), so cross-working is a way of maximising the use of rolling stock and freeing up platform space.
2. Most routes run on regular clock-face frequencies. Supposing a service is half hourly, but the journey time is 35 minutes. It makes sense to have a 10 minute turnaround at Waterloo, then go out on a service that has a journey time of 25 minutes. It will then come back in time to go out on the first route again.
3. Newer stock my have improved journey times, which could affect how services are timetabled.

This may be complete rubbish, but they are a few of my thoughts

 

[nw1]

Not spoken with any particular knowledge, but I suspect there are a number of factors behind these changes:

1. Train frequencies have improved over recent years (pre Covid), so cross-working is a way of maximising the use of rolling stock and freeing up platform space.
2. Most routes run on regular clock-face frequencies. Supposing a service is half hourly, but the journey time is 35 minutes. It makes sense to have a 10 minute turnaround at Waterloo, then go out on a service that has a journey time of 25 minutes. It will then come back in time to go out on the first route again.
3. Newer stock my have improved journey times, which could affect how services are timetabled.

This may be complete rubbish, but they are a few of my thoughts

It certainly makes sense to have interworking to minimise platform occupancy for the reasons you have given, and that would explain the Basingstoke-Alton interworking of the 90s. However the CWN I remember seeing from recent years had 'irregular interworking' off-peak, i.e. stock not following a set pattern. By contrast the suburban routes seem to have 'regular interworking', in which a given unit cycles through 4 or 5 different routes before returning to the original route and beginning the cycle again.

Obviously irregularity early or late in the off-peak, for example after 1500, makes sense as units have to start being put in the right place to work appropriate peak workings - but the CWN I saw (will try and dig it out of the Modern EMUs group when I have a moment) had irregularity literally in the middle part of the day.

It's not a complaint, I actually rather enjoy a bit of unpredictability - the fact that several routes out of Waterloo could be either 444 or 450, or, in slam-door days, either CIG or VEP, added more interest to the railway.

 

[30907]

The early 80s the SW was still essentially on the 1967 (Bournemouth electric) timetable and it was very much horses-for-courses with CIGs on the Pompey fasts, VEPs on the Basingstoke/Alton semis and Guildford stoppers, and of course REP+TC for Bournemouth. The only interworking would be the fast and semifast Bournemouths. Turnrounds on the VEP routes were never over-long.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

It's interesting to note that over the years there seem to have been differing policies to route interworking at Waterloo on the non-suburban routes (suburban always seem to have interworked, presumably due to the high frequency and need to reduce platform occupancy) with interworking going 'in' and 'out' of fashion at various times. It would be interesting to see if there are any particular reasons.

Obviously interworking is often necessary in the peaks (when we had a peak - this post solely relates to the period 1982* to 2019, i.e. the 'normal' railway) due to differing peak schedules, need to deploy the highest-density stock on high-demand services, and to reduce platform occupancy. So interworking in the peaks was normal in this entire period.

(*82/83 was the first timetable I was exposed to)

However some years - notably in recent times, since the introduction of the Desiros - there seemed to be considerable off-peak interworking and seemingly 'random' trips to and from Clapham Yard in the middle of the day. I can't remember which year it was but there was a recent CWN I saw which showed this, perhaps 2018? I'm fairly sure I've noted this in other CWNs from relatively recent years, too.

Also in the nineties, it was commonplace for the Basingstoke and Alton lines to interwork, and there seemed to be quite a bit of irregularity in 1989 too (based on the '93' Waterloo-Southampton workings) but I didn't study the workings in great detail that year.

By contrast, in timetables such as 1982-83 or 1983-84, and the final slam-door timetables in 2004, most of the off-peak was fairly predictable with stock from one route going out on the same route. Early 2004 was particularly notable for this (I have obtained a CWN from this rather fascinating transitional period, from the Modern EMUs group at groups.io) while the 1980s examples had a few 'swaps' during the day.

(Also of note is how shortening to 4-car off-peak was commonplace in the 80s and 90s but had been more or less eliminated by early 2004, but this has been discussed before so don't want to focus on this).

So basically much of the 'Desiro' era seems to have had more irregularity, from what I gather, compared to the slam-door era. Wondering if there is a specific reason for this?

Hi nw1 and all,

New to this forum but have looked in now and again. Apologies for copying your entire post, but needed to see same while replying as I believe I can answer some of your questions.

From a train planning angle certain patterns of in/out working at Waterloo were (and still are I would guess - I can not comment for the present time) always desirable. This made for easy understanding of platforming patterns for staff, signallers and passengers alike, thus planning for a more robust service overall. A number of things changed as far as I remember, possibly commencing around the time of privatisation (I will stand corrected date wise).
Firstly the Department over the river started to take an interest in passenger loadings, and therefore the industry had to adjust some (peak) services in an attempt to alleviate crowding on certain services, which over time led to certain patterns being broken between the peaks.

With the introduction of the Desiro's, mileage based maintenance became something that the planners had to take account of, unit diagram wise, where previously (slam door days) units arriving on depot were dealt with (new brake blocks etc etc) as and when they needed them, and WC's were emptied, at the passengers will, as it were! With mileage based maintenance came an annual upper mileage limit for both Desiro fleet types, that was not to be exceeded in the base plan. This also had some impact on the 'standard pattern', as did the desire to ensure that units starting from out stations each day, were rotated diagram wise, via a CET location. For many such services, often those referred to as 'peak additionals', which in some cases worked just one journey in a peak period, Clapham Yard was the nearest and least driver diagram intrusive, to take the stock to between the peaks.

Further to this, other options were investigated to remove any undue waste in the plan. One suggestion mentioned at the point of privatisation as I remember being that if London Underground could run their services with full length trains all day, everyday, why could this not apply on the suburban network? The thinking being this would remove a number of ECS paths between Waterloo & Clapham Yard/Wimbledon Park and visa-versa, thus easing potential congestion of the timetable, and make better use of crews. Eg: a driver taking an ECS from Waterloo to Wimbledon Park after the morning peak was effectively lost to productive passenger train work for over an hour by the time they had stabled their train at Wimbledon depot (depot drivers did not relieve main line drivers of their trains on the way on to depot) and then 'passed' back to Waterloo for their next turn.

In addition to the above, as soon as changes were made to the in/out pattern of individual trains, particularly in the peak/shoulder peak periods, there was a very real likelihood that the platform workings at Waterloo would need to be adjusted, and with a very complex track layout, due largely to the presence of Westminster Road bridge, there were often very few 'ideal' alternative paths to be found in the station throat area to encompass the various changes that were being asked of the planners.

Prior to Covid, planned capacity in relation to train movements in the Waterloo throat area (which dictated the number of trains using the station) had, I personally believe, been pushed to its limit. Some may say beyond?

Hope that helps?

 

[nw1]

Hi nw1 and all,

New to this forum but have looked in now and again. Apologies for copying your entire post, but needed to see same while replying as I believe I can answer some of your questions.

From a train planning angle certain patterns of in/out working at Waterloo were (and still are I would guess - I can not comment for the present time) always desirable. This made for easy understanding of platforming patterns for staff, signallers and passengers alike, thus planning for a more robust service overall. A number of things changed as far as I remember, possibly commencing around the time of privatisation (I will stand corrected date wise).
Firstly the Department over the river started to take an interest in passenger loadings, and therefore the industry had to adjust some (peak) services in an attempt to alleviate crowding on certain services, which over time led to certain patterns being broken between the peaks.

With the introduction of the Desiro's, mileage based maintenance became something that the planners had to take account of, unit diagram wise, where previously (slam door days) units arriving on depot were dealt with (new brake blocks etc etc) as and when they needed them, and WC's were emptied, at the passengers will, as it were! With mileage based maintenance came an annual upper mileage limit for both Desiro fleet types, that was not to be exceeded in the base plan. This also had some impact on the 'standard pattern', as did the desire to ensure that units starting from out stations each day, were rotated diagram wise, via a CET location. For many such services, often those referred to as 'peak additionals', which in some cases worked just one journey in a peak period, Clapham Yard was the nearest and least driver diagram intrusive, to take the stock to between the peaks.

Further to this, other options were investigated to remove any undue waste in the plan. One suggestion mentioned at the point of privatisation as I remember being that if London Underground could run their services with full length trains all day, everyday, why could this not apply on the suburban network? The thinking being this would remove a number of ECS paths between Waterloo & Clapham Yard/Wimbledon Park and visa-versa, thus easing potential congestion of the timetable, and make better use of crews. Eg: a driver taking an ECS from Waterloo to Wimbledon Park after the morning peak was effectively lost to productive passenger train work for over an hour by the time they had stabled their train at Wimbledon depot (depot drivers did not relieve main line drivers of their trains on the way on to depot) and then 'passed' back to Waterloo for their next turn.

In addition to the above, as soon as changes were made to the in/out pattern of individual trains, particularly in the peak/shoulder peak periods, there was a very real likelihood that the platform workings at Waterloo would need to be adjusted, and with a very complex track layout, due largely to the presence of Westminster Road bridge, there were often very few 'ideal' alternative paths to be found in the station throat area to encompass the various changes that were being asked of the planners.

Prior to Covid, planned capacity in relation to train movements in the Waterloo throat area (which dictated the number of trains using the station) had, I personally believe, been pushed to its limit. Some may say beyond?

Hope that helps?

Hi,

Yes very interesting thanks. Of all these considerations, the maintenance issue would probably best explain the changes made in the Desiro era. Also, 'driver training' runs seemed to become more widespread which led to some irregularities off-peak.

I'm familiar with the argument for running full-length trains all day as this has been discussed several times in the past; one might assume that a calculation of the costs has been made and it's less expensive to run 8-car trains all day than take the stock back to the depot. I would imagine formerly (when a 4-car off-peak railway was the norm) the reverse applied: the railway was less busy (so more ECS paths availanble, and perhaps more slack in driver schedules) and perhaps because the slam-door stock was 20 or 30 years old, so mimimising its mileage would have been a more important consideration. (Though that said, the 455s, which were very new at the time, also reduced down to 4-car off-peak during the 80s and 90s).

The change to 'full length all day' will have happened some years after privatisation, as in 1997 (under SWT) the off-peak was still very much a 4-car railway while by Jan 2004 it had largely become 8-car off peak, even on longer-distance routes such as Alton (which saw a 12CIG running back and forth all day on one of the 6 diagrams, with all the others 8-car).

That said, though, I think the policy was then reversed somewhat in the Desiro era. I definitely recall a few (not all) Waterloo-Portsmouth services in the 00s and early 10s being 4.450 off peak for example, and quite a few of the xx09 (Portsmouth via Eastleigh) and xx39 (Poole semi-fast) were the same. And there were many 5.444 workings off peak (possibly still are, though I've lost interest with the post-Covid timetables in all honesty).

The early 80s the SW was still essentially on the 1967 (Bournemouth electric) timetable and it was very much horses-for-courses with CIGs on the Pompey fasts, VEPs on the Basingstoke/Alton semis and Guildford stoppers, and of course REP+TC for Bournemouth. The only interworking would be the fast and semifast Bournemouths. Turnrounds on the VEP routes were never over-long.

Yes, that aligns with my observations though there always were one or two 'route swaps' in the middle of the day, perhaps related to driver diagrams? For instance the 1120 Guildford-Waterloo ('82', ex Portsmouth Harbour) in 1982/83 then went out on a Basingstoke/Alton divider. And in the same era, there were several instances of '82' and '73'/'83' services (Portsmouth Direct semi-fast and slow, respectively) swapping over at Waterloo.

This has come up on another thread but the Windsor lines by contrast in this era (1982/83 specifically) were very irregular; I have only recently discovered this via a CWN. The peak services to Windsor and Eton Riverside were formed of EPBs but off-peak they used spare CIGs and VEPs, for reasons discussed in the other thread (around late December I think). Towards the peak the CIGs and VEPs would then move onto Reading services while EPBs off other suburban services, or from Clapham Yard/Wimbledon, would take over the Windsors. Saturday the service was pure VEP until late evening when EPBs took over, and two of the VEPs then joined and worked down to Portsmouth Harbour of all places. Wonder if BR advertised day trips to Windsor as featuring 'First class accommodation at no extra cost' in this era (as the services were declassified)?