Woolwich/Sidcup Rounders: What Destination Should They Show?

[Class800]

I remember a lot of route codes from my youth.
80 Dartford to Charing Cross via Greenwich
81 Dartford to Cannon Street via Greenwich
82 Gillingham to Charing Cross via Greenwich
83 Gillingham to Cannon Street via Greenwich
84 Gravesend or Strood to Charing Cross via Greenwich
85 Gravesend to Strood to Cannon Street via Greenwich
86 Slade Green or Plumstead to Charing Cross via Greenwich
87 Slade Green or Plumstead to Cannon Street via Greenwich

Change the leading 8 to 6 for services via Woolwich and Lewisham, e.g.
60 Dartford to Charing Cross via Woolwich and Lewisham

Change the leading 8 to 4 for services via Sidcup, e.g.
40 Dartford to Charing Cross via Sidcup.

Change to leading 8 to 7 for services via Bexleyheath, e.g.
70 Dartford to Charing Cross via Bexleyheath.

The '6' and '7' endings were used on each line for short of Dartford terminating services, e.g.
77 Dartford to Barnehurst via Bexleyheath.

Services to London Victoria ended in 8,
68 Dartford to Victoria via Woolwich and Lewisham
78 Dartford to Victoria via Bexleyheath

These were in timetables and on the front of the train - why were these ever removed? People getting on wrong route train didn't happen much then

 

[Southern]

Remember when I was a child seeing 465 destination displays with either "Woolwich A via Sidcup" or "Sidcup via Greenwich" - did these cause a lot of confusion or something?

 

[frodshamfella]

I remember a lot of route codes from my youth.
80 Dartford to Charing Cross via Greenwich
81 Dartford to Cannon Street via Greenwich
82 Gillingham to Charing Cross via Greenwich
83 Gillingham to Cannon Street via Greenwich
84 Gravesend or Strood to Charing Cross via Greenwich
85 Gravesend to Strood to Cannon Street via Greenwich
86 Slade Green or Plumstead to Charing Cross via Greenwich
87 Slade Green or Plumstead to Cannon Street via Greenwich

Change the leading 8 to 6 for services via Woolwich and Lewisham, e.g.
60 Dartford to Charing Cross via Woolwich and Lewisham

Change the leading 8 to 4 for services via Sidcup, e.g.
40 Dartford to Charing Cross via Sidcup.

Change to leading 8 to 7 for services via Bexleyheath, e.g.
70 Dartford to Charing Cross via Bexleyheath.

The '6' and '7' endings were used on each line for short of Dartford terminating services, e.g.
77 Dartford to Barnehurst via Bexleyheath.

Services to London Victoria ended in 8,
68 Dartford to Victoria via Woolwich and Lewisham
78 Dartford to Victoria via Bexleyheath

These were in timetables and on the front of the train - why were these ever removed? People getting on wrong route train didn't happen much then

Before There was a Bexleyheath line service to Victoria, Headcode 78 was for Blackfriars / Holborn Viaduct service.

I think on the Sidcup line the headcodes were mainly 50s. The 40 ones were via Sidcup but not via Lewisham. i think !

Hayes line while mentioning headcodes was mainly 20s ( normally 24/25 Charing Cross and Cannon Street to Hayes) via Lewisham and 30s not via Lewisham, which from my memory was pretty much 34 only.

 

[Class800]

Sorry you are right, 50 was Sidcup via Lewisham and 40 was Sidcup bypassing Lewisham, a while ago, I forgot that detail. I don't know Hayes line personally (of course I know where it is, just never been on it). Interesting to see 78 was for Blackfriars/Holborn Viaduct - that service was directly replaced by the Victoria one, so that makes sense it had the same headcode.

 

[Class800]

and I had a couple of dyslexic errors in my post too. 77 Cannon Street to Barnehurst via Bexleyheath. I find the headcode topic interesting

 

[James90012]

I think there's a lot of value and potential in this discussion and moving towards a railway which 'feels' more Metro without actually changing all that much and doing something which have a significant impact without huge costs.

I'm an occasional user of Southeastern Metro and I do confess that I find the routings quite complicated even being a crank. I originally started by thinking it would just be useful at London Bridge for example to introduce services as 'Bexleyheath Line', 'Sidcup Line' etc so you know straight away at least which line it's heading for first and using routing codes to make it clearer - perhaps things like CX1 for Charing Cross and CS1 for Cannon Street Greenwich Line services. In this way the description would be similar to a tube line name. Reverting to Southern route codes is also an interesting idea.

I find I need to check my phone at London Bridge when there are 3 consecutive departures from Platform 1 going to Slade Green - 3 different ways!

 

[NorthKent1989]

I think there's a lot of value and potential in this discussion and moving towards a railway which 'feels' more Metro without actually changing all that much and doing something which have a significant impact without huge costs.

I'm an occasional user of Southeastern Metro and I do confess that I find the routings quite complicated even being a crank. I originally started by thinking it would just be useful at London Bridge for example to introduce services as 'Bexleyheath Line', 'Sidcup Line' etc so you know straight away at least which line it's heading for first and using routing codes to make it clearer - perhaps things like CX1 for Charing Cross and CS1 for Cannon Street Greenwich Line services. In this way the description would be similar to a tube line name. Reverting to Southern route codes is also an interesting idea.

I find I need to check my phone at London Bridge when there are 3 consecutive departures from Platform 1 going to Slade Green - 3 different ways!

In the 80s and right up Until the 00s the Dartford routes were announced as being either the “Greenwich line” “Woolwich line” Bexleyheath line” and “Sidcup line” other non Dartford routes were just introduced as “the Sevenoaks service” or “the Hayes service”

It was easier to announce the Dartford routes as individual lines since they’re essentially self contained group of metro routes that are complex

However it was also probably confusing since the Greenwich line also runs to Woolwich so both lines could be the Woolwich lines

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It was easier to announce the Dartford routes as individual lines since they’re essentially self contained group of metro routes that are complex

However it was also probably confusing since the Greenwich line also runs to Woolwich so both lines could be the Woolwich lines

Your second line is exactly what I was thinking. Simply saying 'Greenwich line' or 'Sidcup line' doesn't capture the complexity of the current service, with two routes via Woolwich, and all the rounders. And that's before you consider the fast trains on the Sidcup line and the Thameslink trains skipping some stops on the Greenwich/Woolwich line.

Personally I don't think either that or the numbering system that some people are proposing is workable on a network where we essentially are trying to run trains from everywhere to everywhere, which means there are relatively few well-defined, discrete, routes. On buses, numbering works because bus routes tend to be much better defined. If I'm at Sidcup and I see a 229 to Thamesmead, I (if I know the route well enough) know exactly what stops it's going to stop at. On the other hand, with something like the current timetable, if I see a train number X to - say - Cannon Street - I'd probably still want to check out the timetable to make sure it's not an unusual fast train that might skip my stop. Also, for buses, unless you are at a central hub, there tend not to be that many routes operating from a particular stop, which makes things easier.

If you mark trains by a route number, you're forcing people to do slightly more work in making a mental connection between the route number and where the route goes. That's true for buses too, but not so much of a problem there (a) because of the better defined routes for buses, (b) because buses prominently display their destination as well as the route number on the front of the bus, and (c) because on a bus, you always have the option of asking the driver as you're getting on whether this is the right bus for X.

Trains also often tend to have engineering work, which means that routes operate with very different patterns from usual. Buses don't really suffer from that problem - at most, a route might see one or two stops temporarily closed due to a diversion.

For all those reasons, I think route numbers are not appropriate for trains in the UK. So far, I've not seen anything in this thread to dissuade me from my belief that the appropriate and correct solution for the SouthEastern outbound rounders is to have route information that gives the destination as 'Circular via X'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A latecomer to the thread, but my view is that people aren't that thick and that an approach similar to LU or some bus routes should be used, i.e. "Circular Route via X and Y". I'd do this for the Fife Circle too, though not the Merseyrail loop line as it's smaller, so just putting "Liverpool Central" until you reach James St inbound works fine.

 

[MikeWh]

I would have indeed, but seeing as I was quite young back then I don't remember the 30.

There may not have been many 30s. When I was young the line had two trains an hour, both all the way to Hastings/Ore.

 

[Roast Veg]

That sounds about right, and would explain why I didn't remember them.

 

[zuriblue]

Before There was a Bexleyheath line service to Victoria, Headcode 78 was for Blackfriars / Holborn Viaduct service.

I think on the Sidcup line the headcodes were mainly 50s. The 40 ones were via Sidcup but not via Lewisham. i think !

Hayes line while mentioning headcodes was mainly 20s ( normally 24/25 Charing Cross and Cannon Street to Hayes) via Lewisham and 30s not via Lewisham, which from my memory was pretty much 34 only.

Sorry you are right, 50 was Sidcup via Lewisham and 40 was Sidcup bypassing Lewisham, a while ago, I forgot that detail. I don't know Hayes line personally (of course I know where it is, just never been on it). Interesting to see 78 was for Blackfriars/Holborn Viaduct - that service was directly replaced by the Victoria one, so that makes sense it had the same headcode.

Before I moved to Switzerland I lived on the Hayes line and I remember that it used to be 24 and 34 to Charing Cross and 25 and 35 to Cannon Street. You rarely saw 35s, almost all Cannon Street went over Lewisham.

Certainly the early days of the Networkers I think they still showed the headcodes.

A full list is here: http://www.semgonline.com/headcodes/eheadcodes/eheadcodes03.html

 

[NorthKent1989]

Before I moved to Switzerland I lived on the Hayes line and I remember that it used to be 24 and 34 to Charing Cross and 25 and 35 to Cannon Street. You rarely saw 35s, almost all Cannon Street went over Lewisham.

Certainly the early days of the Networkers I think they still showed the headcodes.

A full list is here: http://www.semgonline.com/headcodes/eheadcodes/eheadcodes03.html

headcodes on Networkers were still displayed until only around 10 or so years ago, they were phased out around the time HS1 opened I think

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Your second line is exactly what I was thinking. Simply saying 'Greenwich line' or 'Sidcup line' doesn't capture the complexity of the current service, with two routes via Woolwich, and all the rounders. And that's before you consider the fast trains on the Sidcup line and the Thameslink trains skipping some stops on the Greenwich/Woolwich line.

You could have "Woolwich Line" trains going "via Greenwich" or "via Lewisham" perhaps?

Do any of the fast Sidcup line trains terminate short of Dartford? Otherwise they would just be denoted by their destination as currently. For Thameslink, won't the operator always be announced anyway? So that distinguishes it from the other services.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’ve heard that during this crisis a lot of Southern trains on the Sydenham and Tulse Hill lines are terminating at Crystal Palace, but how this works is that a train terminates there from the Sydenham line and returns to London Bridge via the Tulse Hill line and vice verca for trains from Tulse Hill they return to LB via Sydenham.

The trains from both lines say that Crystal Palace is the final stop but if one waits for a few minutes you have a circular service.

 

[NorthKent1989]

You could have "Woolwich Line" trains going "via Greenwich" or "via Lewisham" perhaps?

Do any of the fast Sidcup line trains terminate short of Dartford? Otherwise they would just be denoted by their destination as currently. For Thameslink, won't the operator always be announced anyway? So that distinguishes it from the other services.

You could have that system, since both Blackheath & Lewisham are technically North Kent/Woolwich line stations as the Bexleyheath line branches off after Blackheath.

But these days 2tph of the Woolwich line is served by Thameslink so the distinction is clearer I suppose

 

[Whistler40145]

Keep it simple

Woolwich Circular or Sidcup Circular

 

[Esker-pades]

Keep it simple

Woolwich Circular or Sidcup Circular

Which is which?

 

[hkstudent]

You could have that system, since both Blackheath & Lewisham are technically North Kent/Woolwich line stations as the Bexleyheath line branches off after Blackheath.

But these days 2tph of the Woolwich line is served by Thameslink so the distinction is clearer I suppose

Yes indeed, all Cannon Street trains are via Greenwich while all Charing Cross trains are via Lewisham

 

[hkstudent]

Your second line is exactly what I was thinking. Simply saying 'Greenwich line' or 'Sidcup line' doesn't capture the complexity of the current service, with two routes via Woolwich, and all the rounders. And that's before you consider the fast trains on the Sidcup line and the Thameslink trains skipping some stops on the Greenwich/Woolwich line.

Personally I don't think either that or the numbering system that some people are proposing is workable on a network where we essentially are trying to run trains from everywhere to everywhere, which means there are relatively few well-defined, discrete, routes. On buses, numbering works because bus routes tend to be much better defined. If I'm at Sidcup and I see a 229 to Thamesmead, I (if I know the route well enough) know exactly what stops it's going to stop at. On the other hand, with something like the current timetable, if I see a train number X to - say - Cannon Street - I'd probably still want to check out the timetable to make sure it's not an unusual fast train that might skip my stop. Also, for buses, unless you are at a central hub, there tend not to be that many routes operating from a particular stop, which makes things easier.

If you mark trains by a route number, you're forcing people to do slightly more work in making a mental connection between the route number and where the route goes. That's true for buses too, but not so much of a problem there (a) because of the better defined routes for buses, (b) because buses prominently display their destination as well as the route number on the front of the bus, and (c) because on a bus, you always have the option of asking the driver as you're getting on whether this is the right bus for X.

Trains also often tend to have engineering work, which means that routes operate with very different patterns from usual. Buses don't really suffer from that problem - at most, a route might see one or two stops temporarily closed due to a diversion.

For all those reasons, I think route numbers are not appropriate for trains in the UK. So far, I've not seen anything in this thread to dissuade me from my belief that the appropriate and correct solution for the SouthEastern outbound rounders is to have route information that gives the destination as 'Circular via X'.

I think that's really down to habit regarding to numbering, particular for those less frequent travellers. They can find the route they need (with specific colour and number). One of the examples would be Berlin / Vienna S-Bahn.
Given that 95+% of the time, trains are running in a regular schedule, making routing into a standardised format to read would be a good way.

 

[John Webb]

As a former resident of Woolwich - I moved away in 1977 - I hadn't appreciated the former Southern Railway/Southern Region 2-digit headcodes had been dropped. It was very simple - even numbers to Charing Cross, odd numbers to Cannon Street and the second digit expressing the start/termination point and then the first digit which route was being taken.
I also hadn't appreciated the introduction of these circular services, similar in some ways to what Thameslink now run on the Sutton loop. These are distinguished by a reference station which indicates which way round the loop it is going - but Sutton is still given as the terminating point.
I'm not clear why people in Central London (ie the termini, Waterloo East and London Bridge) need to know if a service is a circular or not. I would have thought it was primarily of interest to those at stations further out where to use one of these trains would result in a shorter and quicker journey than going in towards London to change at Blackheath or Lewisham for example. But not having experienced the newer trains I'm uncertain exactly what the on-board display can or could display!

 

[Barn]

So far, I've not seen anything in this thread to dissuade me from my belief that the appropriate and correct solution for the SouthEastern outbound rounders is to have route information that gives the destination as 'Circular via X'.

Can outbound rounders from London be described as circulars? I didn't think you were allowed to leave London and travel round the far end of the circle due to the negative easement?

000044 Journeys from or via London and via Crayford and Slade Green, Slade Green and Barnehurst or Barnehurst and Crayford are not valid. This applies in both directions

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think that's really down to habit regarding to numbering, particular for those less frequent travellers. They can find the route they need (with specific colour and number). One of the examples would be Berlin / Vienna S-Bahn.
Given that 95+% of the time, trains are running in a regular schedule, making routing into a standardised format to read would be a good way.

Here I would distinguish between numbers and colours. Colouring routes can be useful because you can use the colours on network maps, making the maps very easy to read. But if you have the colours, the numbers are redundant. You may just as well call it the 'red route'. Calling it 'route 4' gives people an extra bit of information they have to remember, with no added benefit over 'red route'. The London Underground solution - where lines have names - is quite good because most people find names easier to remember and, unlike numbers, it's possible for the names to slightly reflect where the line goes.

But this discussion seems irrelevant to the national rail network in SouthEast London because it all relies on clear, discrete, routes so that every train follows one of only a small number of possible routes - and that situation doesn't exist on the national rail network.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not clear why people in Central London (ie the termini, Waterloo East and London Bridge) need to know if a service is a circular or not. I would have thought it was primarily of interest to those at stations further out where to use one of these trains would result in a shorter and quicker journey than going in towards London to change at Blackheath or Lewisham for example. But not having experienced the newer trains I'm uncertain exactly what the on-board display can or could display!

I'd agree, the fact that the route is 'circular' is only of interest once you get beyond the London terminals - when people may well be using them to make journeys like Sidcup to Charlton or Belvedere to Bexleyheath. But I can't see it would do any harm at - say - London Bridge - to advertise a train as 'circular via Sidcup': That still gives regular passengers all the information they need to tell if it's the correct train for them, and means that you don't need to change the description of the train after it's left London Bridge.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can outbound rounders from London be described as circulars? I didn't think you were allowed to leave London and travel round the far end of the circle due to the negative easement?

000044 Journeys from or via London and via Crayford and Slade Green, Slade Green and Barnehurst or Barnehurst and Crayford are not valid. This applies in both directions

Yeah, technically, even 'circular' is strictly speaking, not quite correct - because that would imply something more like the Glasgow Underground, or the Circle line before they re-routed it - where the train basically goes round and round. Whereas this is more akin to a route that goes round a loop before coming back to where it started. But it seems to me that 'circular' is still a lot closer to being correct than what is currently done - saying it terminates at Slade Green. The problem of not showing journeys that people shouldn't be making (like Hither Green to London Bridge via Slade Green) is easy to solve by not listing calling points until those stations become relevent - for example, on a via Sidcup train, you don't list any stations beyond Slade Green until you're at least at Hither Green.

 

[frodshamfella]

These rounders did exist at least in peak hours years ago. I used to use Bexleyheath, several trains did have a destination as Slade Green rather than Dartford/Gravesend. The Slade Green services would then become an up service via Woolwich A. Some terminated at Barnehurst and I was never sure whether trains reversed there or continued to the North Kent or Dartford Loop, or did both ?
Would passenger use them to travel Bexleyheath to Woolwich for example, maybe but I think most would catch the bus i'd have thought.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I'm not clear why people in Central London (ie the termini, Waterloo East and London Bridge) need to know if a service is a circular or not. I would have thought it was primarily of interest to those at stations further out where to use one of these trains would result in a shorter and quicker journey than going in towards London to change at Blackheath or Lewisham for example. But not having experienced the newer trains I'm uncertain exactly what the on-board display can or could display!

Why not do what is done on the Kingston loop services from Waterloo? At Waterloo, ones that go via Kingston then Richmond are shown as to Strawberry Hill; ones that go the other way are shown as to Teddington. When the former get to Wimbledon, they're shown as going to Richmond; when they get to Kingston, they're shown as going to Waterloo. When the latter get to Richmond they're shown as going to Wimbledon; when they get to Teddington they're shown as going to Waterloo. This applies to both train and station information screens.

Hence, a Cannon Street to Cannon Street via Bexley and Slade Green service could be shown as going to Slade Green at Cannon Street down to Lewisham, where it could be shown as going to Woolwich; after Bexley or thereabouts it could be shown as going to Cannon Street via Slade Green and Woolwich. Other services could be done in an analogous manner. It works well on the Kingston loop services, so it should be able to work on loop services in south-east London too.

 

[Barn]

Do commuters at Slade Green tend to have a 'preferred' platform for traveling to London, or do they tend to board whichever train comes first (other than one going to/via Dartford)?

 

[Horizon22]

@ComUtoR has already explained this in great depth, so I would suggest you read his comment as it explains the situation pretty well.

The point at which the CIS changes destination is similar to how the circle line works. At The London terminals the train will appear to go no further than Slade Green / Bexleyheath / Crayford. This is of course where the vast majority of passengers want to go, the loops have incredibly low patronage. Not entirely sure why in the OP's case they would be travelling that way. I believe about 6 months ago the CIS / PIS were going to "sync" up at various agreed points on the journey (let's say Cannon St [now says Slade Green via Woolwich], Slade Green [now says Sidcup via Crayford] and Crayford [now says Cannon St via Sidcup]) but I've not been down that way for a while. If the CIS and PIS matched perfectly that would be the ideal, however that would require PIS being changed at regular intervals which might irk drivers, especially if they've only got 30 sec dwell times.

The vast majority look for the via signs, but for those not in the know it is much much easier to hide the full destination, otherwise you confuse passengers unnecessarily. People before Lewisham don't actually need to know if it's a circular unless there's some form of serious service disruption blocking a line (in which case trains would probably terminate early anyway / be cancelled)

 

[Horizon22]

I’ve heard that during this crisis a lot of Southern trains on the Sydenham and Tulse Hill lines are terminating at Crystal Palace, but how this works is that a train terminates there from the Sydenham line and returns to London Bridge via the Tulse Hill line and vice verca for trains from Tulse Hill they return to LB via Sydenham.

The trains from both lines say that Crystal Palace is the final stop but if one waits for a few minutes you have a circular service.

Yes this is the case; running via Sydenham to Crystal Palace then back via Tulse Hill to London Bridge and vice versa. Wouldn't say it's a "few minutes" as it does sit there for approximately ~10 minutes. The booked "terminals rounder" to Victoria <> London Bridge isn't running during this timetable.