3tph on North Downs Line

[JonathanH]

Redhill is a Southern station and it's very obvious that they regard GW as an irritant in their operations. I no longer commute through Redhill, thank goodness, but it was a source of extreme stress when an hourly (or two hourly!) train was missed for the want of a minute or two. My morning journey used to feature cross-platform interchange at Redhill and it was normal for our NDL train to have arrived and the doors released exactly as the platform staff would close the adjacent Victoria train's doors - that train would then have a timetabled four minute stand outside East Croydon!

It isn't as if they hold anything else at Redhill - eg connections Southern to Southern or Southern to Thameslink either. I dont think they pick out the GWR services any more than anything else. The instruction is to dispatch on time regardless.

As you suggest, an approaching train will hasten dispatch to ensure a right time departure isn't delayed by people transferring.

 

[DorkingMain]

Dispatch staff are told not to hold anything unless specifically instructed to do so by control. Control are unlikely to issue such an authorisation due to the resulting impact on other trains. It may seem nonsensical from a passenger perspective but there is a wider network at play with several very tightly timed passes between trains.

 

[Minstral25]

Over the years, the Home Cottage in Redhill (just up the hill from the back exit of the station) must have benefited quite a bit from my missed connections. What better way is there to spend a bit of your delay repay, than on a pint of Young's and a seat in the warm? Hopefully that'll be possible again eventually...

Used to be a lovely old fashioned pub frequented often by yours truly, but not so popular with me since it became a Gastro pub and lost its soul.

 

[infobleep]

Dispatch staff are told not to hold anything unless specifically instructed to do so by control. Control are unlikely to issue such an authorisation due to the resulting impact on other trains. It may seem nonsensical from a passenger perspective but there is a wider network at play with several very tightly timed passes between trains.

Alas on one occasion staff at Gatwick Airport told me the train would be held. No idea what gave them that idea unless they just said it as the easiest way to get rid of a passenger.

 

[73128]

Charging off the third rail won’t be ‘rapid’ as such, it would be limited to the same current draw as any unit under power. What it will be, though, is drawing full power for much longer, ie rather than ‘notching back’ when reaching top speed or coasting, it will still be drawing full amps. There’s a possibility that it could still draw power whilst concurrently braking regeneratively.

However, and this is the trump on the table, if extra power capacity (substations etc) is needed for battery trains to draw full power at any of the existing electrification on the North Downs as mentioned above, you also need that same power capacity on the same sections to deal with non-battery electric trains drawing full power. (It’s not quite that simple, but it will do for here).

And then you also need to electrify the bits in between, with all the substations etc that they need too.

Are many additional substations likely to be needed, given existing facilities on existing electrified lines near Farnborough and Dorking North (which might need enlargement)? Partly depends obviously on whether there is to be capacity of three four car trains an hour, or for rather more and longer.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Are many additional substations likely to be needed, given existing facilities on existing electrified lines near Farnborough and Dorking North (which might need enlargement)? Partly depends obviously on whether there is to be capacity of three four car trains an hour, or for rather more and longer.

At Farnborough on the SWML and Guildford on the Pompey Direct there are currently issues with power draw being restricted until upgrades can be done so there’s not exactly ‘spare power’!

 

[Bald Rick]

Are many additional substations likely to be needed, given existing facilities on existing electrified lines near Farnborough and Dorking North (which might need enlargement)? Partly depends obviously on whether there is to be capacity of three four car trains an hour, or for rather more and longer.

I don’t know I’m afraid.

 

[2192]

I thought official enthusiasm was for extending the North Down trains at the other end and going on to Oxford to stimulate Gatwick trffic.

 

[JN114]

There seems to be an ongoing obsession with extending it somewhere.

It’s an operational basket case already. It isn’t going to be made worse with frivolous extensions to other places even further away from where it’s operated from.

 

[zwk500]

There seems to be an ongoing obsession with extending it somewhere.

It’s an operational basket case already. It isn’t going to be made worse with frivolous extensions to other places even further away from where it’s operated from.

It could be made an awful lot worse by extending it. Going past reading means calling at the main station instead of the terminal platforms, and using a single-track link between the Wessex and Western regions. If there's disruption on the Western, trains start presenting late to the Wessex lines. Extending past Gatwick risks getting caught up in anything that happens at Brighton or on the 2-track, and therefore trains risk presenting late at Redhill. It's a single-lead junction for trains reversing, so being even a couple of minutes late can cause issues for the rest of the day.

Reading provides terminal platforms on a not very busy line (i.e. can cope with trains being 2-5 mins late), with good connections for onwards travel. Gatwick provides available platform capacity, a key destination and good connections to onwards travel, without interacting with the Brighton Fast Lines. They are the natural limits for this type of service. There may be demand for Oxford-Sussex or Brighton-North Downs, but the operational risks start increasing dramatically and the service is unreliable enough as it is. 1 Change for those journeys is not the end of the world.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought official enthusiasm was for extending the North Down trains at the other end and going on to Oxford to stimulate Gatwick trffic.

There seems to be an ongoing obsession with extending it somewhere.

Only in places like this! There’s no formal plans to do it AFAIK.

 

[JN114]

Indeed yes. There’s no desire, at least within the operations side of GWR, for it to go anywhere other than it does now - perhaps the odd start/end of day run through from/to Oxford for stabling to relieve pressure on Reading TCD; as with 1O52 Saturday mornings. But nothing more than in-service positioning moves.

 

[infobleep]

Reading provides terminal platforms on a not very busy line (i.e. can cope with trains being 2-5 mins late), with good connections for onwards travel. Gatwick provides available platform capacity, a key destination and good connections to onwards travel, without interacting with the Brighton Fast Lines. They are the natural limits for this type of service. There may be demand for Oxford-Sussex or Brighton-North Downs, but the operational risks start increasing dramatically and the service is unreliable enough as it is. 1 Change for those journeys is not the end of the world.

Gatwick does provide platform cacpity but during disruption trains terminate short at Redhill.

There have been times in the past when trains terminating short at Redhill have lead to extended journey times, to the point where one ends up at Gatwick Airport almost an hour late. If one is catching a plane, it's a good job you allowed 2 hours at the airport prior to the flight leaving (now reduced to almost an hour).

A train every 30 minutes may help if that isn't too disrupted and is allowed to go to Gatwick Airport.

 

[zwk500]

Gatwick does provide platform cacpity but during disruption trains terminate short at Redhill.
There have been times in the past when trains terminating short at Redhill have lead to extended journey times, to the point where one ends up at Gatwick Airport almost an hour late. If one is catching a plane, it's a good job you allowed 2 hours at the airport prior to the flight leaving (now reduced to almost an hour).

A train every 30 minutes may help if that isn't too disrupted and is allowed to go to Gatwick Airport.

During disruption, to be fair, a lot of the usual trade-offs don't apply because multiple trains are likely to be out of position.
It's a problem, and one that should be solved by a combination of control making sure they don't turn consecutive trains around (within reason) and providing alternative connections (and holding them) through Thameslink or Southern. But what may happen during disruption should not guide the regular timetable frequency.

 

[infobleep]

During disruption, to be fair, a lot of the usual trade-offs don't apply because multiple trains are likely to be out of position.
It's a problem, and one that should be solved by a combination of control making sure they don't turn consecutive trains around (within reason) and providing alternative connections (and holding them) through Thameslink or Southern. But what may happen during disruption should not guide the regular timetable frequency.

Well turning consecutive Redhill trains around isn't unusual during some disruption.

I note tomorrow morning that the 6:41 from Guildford arrives into Redhill at 7:13, the same time a train to Brighton leaves, leaving a 29 minute gap for another train to get to Gatwick Airport. Until recently the trains allowed for a connection. Maybe engineering work elsewhere has changed this just for tomorrow.

I appricate there will never be three trains an hour on Sundays though.

Edit: I've just realised they are actually running direct trains to Gatwick Airport tomorrow, abet from after 8am.

 

[infobleep]

If passenger levels were not to return, would they consider rejigging the timetable so that the stopping service to Redhill doesn't wait so long at Guildford? Is there the paths at Redhill for that to happen?

 

[zwk500]

If passenger levels were not to return, would they consider rejigging the timetable so that the stopping service to Redhill doesn't wait so long at Guildford? Is there the paths at Redhill for that to happen?

They wouldn't be able to do so until the next unbid for timetable change, which is probably December 2022 at this point. Unless they read the writing on the wall earlier and have already bid for it in Dec 21 or May 22 (not 100% sure when the bid date was for May 22). However, it is much more likely that the interworking with SWR services at Guildford and platform occupancy at Redhill means it probably can't do anything other than what it does now.

 

[infobleep]

They wouldn't be able to do so until the next unbid for timetable change, which is probably December 2022 at this point. Unless they read the writing on the wall earlier and have already bid for it in Dec 21 or May 22 (not 100% sure when the bid date was for May 22). However, it is much more likely that the interworking with SWR services at Guildford and platform occupancy at Redhill means it probably can't do anything other than what it does now.

Thanks for the information. I would like a second train each hour but if there isn't going to be the same demand, I wouldn't want stopping services to have long waits at Guildford.

May be as the line isn't into London, it will fair better n terms of passenger numbers (pun not intended) and a second train justified. Only time will tell.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Thanks for the information. I would like a second train each hour but if there isn't going to be the same demand, I wouldn't want stopping services to have long waits at Guildford.

May be as the line isn't into London, it will fair better n terms of passenger numbers (pun not intended) and a second train justified. Only time will tell.

Looking at the May 2021 timetable many of the previously withdrawn services seem to re-appear although not the 3rd train an hour.

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at the May 2021 timetable many of the previously withdrawn services seem to re-appear although not the 3rd train an hour.

The paths for the third train are all Q paths in the plan though. Realistically, if the schedule for 769s remains as it was in the Direct Award - eg full 769 fleet introduced in May 2022 (instead of May 2021) and the Turbos are released to Bristol one for one as 769s are put into service, it is surely going to be another year before 3tph could run.

It is all a bit of a mess isn't it. The 2tph timetable worked fine with a stopper on one side of the hour and a semi-fast on the other With Gatwick Airport basically closed, there is no need for 3tph. As it is, it will most likely be ages before more than 1tph is needed east of Guildford and that 1tph has a long wait in Guildford.

3tph was clearly about Gatwick rather than local travel and that demand generator has gone.

 

[infobleep]

Here is an idea which probably doesn't work but I'll mention it anyway

For a future timetable change, could they retime the stopper but keep the original times in as Q paths? Can you even have timetables with two options in it, where one is just Q paths until needed? When used the other is simply cancelled from the system of course.

I do accept that is more work and from that point alone might not be viable.

 

[JonathanH]

For a future timetable change, could they retime the stopper but keep the original times in as Q paths? Can you even have timetables with two options in it, where one is just Q paths until needed? When used the other is simply cancelled from the system of course.

The May 2021 timetable already has different Q and WTT paths for the same departure times from Reading in some instances.

As an example:
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...21-05-27/1619-1621?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

In the 3tph timetable, the 1620 train would run stopper to Guildford and semi-fast to Gatwick, with a following train picking up the stops. In the 2tph timetable, the 1620 train is a stopper throughout to Redhill.

 

[zwk500]

Here is an idea which probably doesn't work but I'll mention it anyway

For a future timetable change, could they retime the stopper but keep the original times in as Q paths? Can you even have timetables with two options in it, where one is just Q paths until needed? When used the other is simply cancelled from the system of course.

I do accept that is more work and from that point alone might not be viable.

You'd need to have every path the 2 options interacted with to have 2 versions, one for when option A runs and one for when option B runs. That means every train on the Ascot-Reading Section, every train between Ash and Guildford, and every train at Redhill. You'd also need to check that the option B of these consequential changes doesn't require further changes at, say, Staines or Aldershot. The graph would be fundamentally unreadable.

 

[infobleep]

Well at some point I guess a decision will need to be taken. On one hand the government doesn't want unnecessary trains running but if they are viable then of course they should run.

Equally people waiting at Guildford Station for a non-existent train that won't overtake them isn't going to encourage them back onto the railway but if a faster train runs and is successful, that would outweigh the wait for the stopper

Not easy decisions to make.

 

[JonathanH]

An application has been made which appears to seek to extend Redhill stopping services to Gatwick in lieu of running 3tph on the route. This meets the franchise requirement for 2tph to run to Gatwick.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blo...GWR 71st SA Form P Industry - ends 290821.pdf

The date of commencement of these new rights is 13th September 2021, during the currency of the Subsidiary Timetable 2021. The rights sought are for 5 Monday to Friday return journeys between Reading and Gatwick after the Brighton mainline Evening Peak; 4 Monday to Friday return journeys between Redhill and Gatwick; and 13 round trips on Saturdays between Redhill and Gatwick.

The Redhill - Gatwick rights are for extension of existing Reading - Redhill services to Gatwick.

These services form part of a package of preview introduction of GWR's franchise requirement for a service
of two trains per hour between Reading and Gatwick on Mondays to Fridays and Saturdays.

Future expansion envisaged (December 2022), but not sought here, includes the extension of these services to all hours Monday to Fridays including during the Brighton Line Peaks.

During the currency of the May 2021 Timetable, Class 769 units will be infiltrated into the service on this
route (including on services timetabled both through existing rights and through rights sought here) using the contingent right to use any rolling stock in the rolling stock library cleared for the route.

As of December 2020, all GWR services in this service group were timed at Class 769 diesel which is the slowest of the traction types available on a practical basis to GWR for this service group.

Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, this route has seen overcrowding.

This helps fulfil a franchise requirement and has continued support of the Secretary of State.

A Section 22a application for the full 3tph service uplift is now withdrawn.

2tph to Gatwick using the stopping and fast services might not be a bad outcome, given the 3tph timetable had that awkward passing move at Guildford and didn't add much at the intermediate stations. The xx20 departure time might from Reading, with removal of the prolonged stop at Guildford might just about be early enough to get the train into the standard slot at Redhill but it looks quite tight.

However, I note that this move would do nothing to help London connections at the east end, particularly if the trains drop into the standard xx04 / xx34 path from Reigate to Redhill.

My guess is this would free up two of the ten 769s nominally allocated to the line for 3tph.

 

[infobleep]

An application has been made which appears to seek to extend Redhill stopping services to Gatwick in lieu of running 3tph on the route. This meets the franchise requirement for 2tph to run to Gatwick.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blo...GWR 71st SA Form P Industry - ends 290821.pdf





2tph to Gatwick using the stopping and fast services might not be a bad outcome, given the 3tph timetable had that awkward passing move at Guildford and didn't add much at the intermediate stations. The xx20 departure time might from Reading, with removal of the prolonged stop at Guildford might just about be early enough to get the train into the standard slot at Redhill but it looks quite tight.

However, I note that this move would do nothing to help London connections at the east end, particularly if the trains drop into the standard xx04 / xx34 path from Reigate to Redhill.

My guess is this would free up two of the ten 769s nominally allocated to the line for 3tph.

Interesting. I'm pleased to see the running of two trains to Gatwick Airport hadn't been scrapped. I was half expecting such an announcement, given at one point last year they had no trains to Gateick Airport. I do apprieacte that did the trail after this date.

Would it be useful to have some ttskl running to Gateick Airport to see if it works?

I would be happy to make do with with a stopper to Gatwick Airport and I'm sure passengers between intermediate stations will like the shorter journey time. For example Ash to Shalford or Ash to Chiltworrh. I know such journeys wouldn't be frequent but clearly people use the intermiedtse stations ss those were prioritised in 2020

Now read the application. I'm glad to see there has been overcrowding as it makes the case for the additional service stronger.

If will running to Gateick Airport reduce this overcrowding and were trains overcrowded in the summer of 2020 when they didn't run to Gatwick Airport.

 

[Deepgreen]

Dispatch staff are told not to hold anything unless specifically instructed to do so by control. Control are unlikely to issue such an authorisation due to the resulting impact on other trains. It may seem nonsensical from a passenger perspective but there is a wider network at play with several very tightly timed passes between trains.

I know that all too well, but after so many incidents involving this particular train (involving a peak-hour run from the North Downs line), I checked the detailed interaction with other trains between Redhill and East Croydon. The train was timetabled to stand immediately outside EC for four minutes for a platform to become available, and almost always did so. It had no clash with trains at Purley or South Croydon and so a, say, 30 second hold at Redhill would have had no knock-on effects whatsover bewteen Redhill and its booked stand outside EC. I wasn't suggesting the train should have been held no matter what, only when passengers were actually crossing the platform when both trains were standing there. I and others wrote to Southern at the time to point out the farce of passengers being left behind by a train which would then wait outside EC for four minutes but they, of course, had no interest in passenger service; only dogged rule-following which disadvantaged passengers needlessly. It would have been so easy to issue specific instructions for that train to be held in those particular circumstances, but that would have meant a bit of initiative from someone. It wasn't as if a 30 second late departure was anything unusual!

The lack of real concern for passenger needs has been a theme of Redhill's operation for as long as I have used it. The latest example is the farce of the lack of a three-car NB stopping mark on p0 for GW trains, meaning a needlessly long trudge to the stairs, increasing the chance of missing other trains and vice versa (and putting most passengers outside the canopy!). All it would take is an additional 2/3 car stopping mark which would stop GW trains fully under the canopy and with ample clearance from the SB starter (which is where through trains using p0 SB stop anyway) but neither GTR or NR were prepared to take on the huge outlay of a 10cm square sign! The situation persists today and should have been designed into the p0 construction plan. No-one cares about such important (and tiny-cost) details.

Then there is the extremely poor delineation of platform sections (particularly p1) which leads to so much passenger confusion. The DMIs are poorly-positioned and it is only by careful checking that it becomes clear that there are two separate train berths. There are only small DMIs and no additional signage to direct passengers coming up the stairs to the correct berth, who are simply greeted with the DMI for the particular berth they are at - nothing directing them further along the platform to the northern-end berth. I used to design and implement station planning and signing schemes for LU, and the one at Redhill is an utter shambles.

 

[infobleep]

I know that all too well, but after so many incidents involving this particular train (involving a peak-hour run from the North Downs line), I checked the detailed interaction with other trains between Redhill and East Croydon. The train was timetabled to stand immediately outside EC for four minutes for a platform to become available, and almost always did so. It had no clash with trains at Purley or South Croydon and so a, say, 30 second hold at Redhill would have had no knock-on effects whatsover bewteen Redhill and its booked stand outside EC. I wasn't suggesting the train should have been held no matter what, only when passengers were actually crossing the platform when both trains were standing there. I and others wrote to Southern at the time to point out the farce of passengers being left behind by a train which would then wait outside EC for four minutes but they, of course, had no interest in passenger service; only dogged rule-following which disadvantaged passengers needlessly. It would have been so easy to issue specific instructions for that train to be held in those particular circumstances, but that would have meant a bit of initiative from someone. It wasn't as if a 30 second late departure was anything unusual!

The lack of real concern for passenger needs has been a theme of Redhill's operation for as long as I have used it. The latest example is the farce of the lack of a three-car NB stopping mark on p0 for GW trains, meaning a needlessly long trudge to the stairs, increasing the chance of missing other trains and vice versa (and putting most passengers outside the canopy!). All it would take is an additional 2/3 car stopping mark which would stop GW trains fully under the canopy and with ample clearance from the SB starter (which is where through trains using p0 SB stop anyway) but neither GTR or NR were prepared to take on the huge outlay of a 10cm square sign! The situation persists today and should have been designed into the p0 construction plan. No-one cares about such important (and tiny-cost) details.

Then there is the extremely poor delineation of platform sections (particularly p1) which leads to so much passenger confusion. The DMIs are poorly-positioned and it is only by careful checking that it becomes clear that there are two separate train berths. There are only small DMIs and no additional signage to direct passengers coming up the stairs to the correct berth, who are simply greeted with the DMI for the particular berth they are at - nothing directing them further along the platform to the northern-end berth. I used to design and implement station planning and signing schemes for LU, and the one at Redhill is an utter shambles.

All really good points to me.

I wonder if things will improve under GBR. The cynic in me says no

Did you ever write to your MP or local councillors about this?

 

[Bikeman78]

I know that all too well, but after so many incidents involving this particular train (involving a peak-hour run from the North Downs line), I checked the detailed interaction with other trains between Redhill and East Croydon. The train was timetabled to stand immediately outside EC for four minutes for a platform to become available, and almost always did so. It had no clash with trains at Purley or South Croydon and so a, say, 30 second hold at Redhill would have had no knock-on effects whatsover bewteen Redhill and its booked stand outside EC. I wasn't suggesting the train should have been held no matter what, only when passengers were actually crossing the platform when both trains were standing there. I and others wrote to Southern at the time to point out the farce of passengers being left behind by a train which would then wait outside EC for four minutes but they, of course, had no interest in passenger service; only dogged rule-following which disadvantaged passengers needlessly. It would have been so easy to issue specific instructions for that train to be held in those particular circumstances, but that would have meant a bit of initiative from someone. It wasn't as if a 30 second late departure was anything unusual!

The lack of real concern for passenger needs has been a theme of Redhill's operation for as long as I have used it. The latest example is the farce of the lack of a three-car NB stopping mark on p0 for GW trains, meaning a needlessly long trudge to the stairs, increasing the chance of missing other trains and vice versa (and putting most passengers outside the canopy!). All it would take is an additional 2/3 car stopping mark which would stop GW trains fully under the canopy and with ample clearance from the SB starter (which is where through trains using p0 SB stop anyway) but neither GTR or NR were prepared to take on the huge outlay of a 10cm square sign! The situation persists today and should have been designed into the p0 construction plan. No-one cares about such important (and tiny-cost) details.

Then there is the extremely poor delineation of platform sections (particularly p1) which leads to so much passenger confusion. The DMIs are poorly-positioned and it is only by careful checking that it becomes clear that there are two separate train berths. There are only small DMIs and no additional signage to direct passengers coming up the stairs to the correct berth, who are simply greeted with the DMI for the particular berth they are at - nothing directing them further along the platform to the northern-end berth. I used to design and implement station planning and signing schemes for LU, and the one at Redhill is an utter shambles.

You forgot to mention the random replatforming of trains from platform 2 to platform 0 without any prior warning. This happened to a Horsham to Peterborough train a while ago. The half dozen passengers (sign of the times!) had to sprint through the subway. I think they all made it as the platform staff were nice that day and weren't in a hurry to dispatch the train.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

You forgot to mention the random replatforming of trains from platform 2 to platform 0 without any prior warning. This happened to a Horsham to Peterborough train a while ago. The half dozen passengers (sign of the times!) had to sprint through the subway. I think they all made it as the platform staff were nice that day and weren't in a hurry to dispatch the train.

Last minute platform changes *should* be slightly different to holding connections in that staff really ought to insure everyone has moved to the right platform. Sadly this doesn’t always occur.