• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

December 2022 Timetable Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,811
Location
Sheffield
I think it was suggested that the cross subsidy isn't necessarily between operations within one train operating company, it is also about overall DfT affordability. So, any surplus paid to the DfT is available to be paid back out as subsidy. If the DfT is paying out subsidy for services that used to pay a surplus, there is less money for paying subsidy for routes that needed a subsidy in the past.

Posters have indicated that the DfT and Treasury are desperate to get the subsidy back to the level they were paying in March 2020, if not less.
A nightmare as it might take 3 or 4 years before levels of passenger demand stabilise. They can't easily do that when services have been cut in almost random fashion, compounded by short notice cancellations caused by a variety of factors.

I look at the services between Sheffield and Manchester. We received an indicative timetable many months ago based around TPE hourly fast Cleethorpes - Liverpool, EMR hourly fast Norwich/Nottingham - Liverpool and hourly Northern stopping Sheffield- Manchester.

Since that was drawn up the longer term effects of Covid are becoming apparent. Commuting is still massively down. Leisure is up. TPE and EMR struggle to provide a consistent and reliable half hourly fast service with short forms and cancellations added to services still absent from the pre-Covid timetable. Leisure users are quite happy to take longer on cheaper stopping trains.

The indicative timetable had an unwritten caveat. Until the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is nearing completion in late 2023 it may not be possible to deliver the full services as suggested. The Manchester congestion issues may be resolved from December but there are others still needing resolution. As far as I can see the full suggested improvements to the stopping and fast services may not come until December 2023 at the earliest and more likely May 2024. By then the future travel market may be more clear.

December 2022 is but a resting point on a long journey - one that will depend very much on the public purse.

.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Peregrine 4903

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
1,443
Location
London
I think it was suggested that the cross subsidy isn't necessarily between operations within one train operating company, it is also about overall DfT affordability. So, any surplus paid to the DfT is available to be paid back out as subsidy. If the DfT is paying out subsidy for services that used to pay a surplus, there is less money for paying subsidy for routes that needed a subsidy in the past.

Posters have indicated that the DfT and Treasury are desperate to get the subsidy back to the level they were paying in March 2020, if not less.
Who has indicated the last bit? Don't get me wrong the DfT and Treasury want to massively decrease subsidy, but where has anyone said they want subsidy to be less than March 2020 levels. I'm pretty sure that its acknowledged that the DfT will be more in subsidy post covid than pre covid.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Sad. We're stuck with essentially a Covid emergency timetable yet again, though I don't actually think the Dec 2022 changes were that much of an improvement anyway.

With the stock, and presumably staff, problems that SWR are suffering, I can understand a reduced level of service is forced on them for the time being. However, it would be nice to see a bit more imagination with a rewrite to provide a reduced (compared to 2004-19) but more even interval service, such as sort out the irregularities on the Portsmouth Direct or give Eastleigh 2tph to Waterloo again. For example, they could look at what SWT offered in their early days in the 90s (essentially based on a 3tph rather than 4tph pattern on the main lines) and work towards something like that.

Even a restoration of something resembling the 80s pattern on the Direct (one fast, one semi-fast, and one stopping, looped at Guildford to allow the fast to overtake) would perhaps be an improvement on the mish-mash available now, in the sense that it would provide a more even-interval service to most stations on the line.



If that's the case, there needs to be some kind of long-term solution to fix the problem.

Being controversial, perhaps encouraging people back to commuting might be one. Or government funding (not that we will get that at the moment, but perhaps by mid-decade).

I guess we need to accept the current era is pretty grim in every way, poor rail services are one (and not the worst) symptom of that, and just hope that from mid-decade onwards many aspects of life will improve.

There are some tactical tweaks I understand in Dec 22 to adjust the Portsmouth Direct line (whilst retaining the same quantum of trains as currently) but will provide half-hourly departures from Waterloo to Portsmouth once again.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
There are some tactical tweaks I understand in Dec 22 to adjust the Portsmouth Direct line (whilst retaining the same quantum of trains as currently) but will provide half-hourly departures from Waterloo to Portsmouth once again.
How about the 2nd hourly train for Branksome and Parkstone which was due to return in the consultation by splitting the semi-fast off Bournemouth?
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,413
Location
Farnham
There are some tactical tweaks I understand in Dec 22 to adjust the Portsmouth Direct line (whilst retaining the same quantum of trains as currently) but will provide half-hourly departures from Waterloo to Portsmouth once again.
Hopefully you mean half-hourly fasts, because that useless fast that terminates at Haslemere is infuriating
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
Hopefully you mean half-hourly fasts, because that useless fast that terminates at Haslemere is infuriating
It's not going to be half hourly fasts if Waterloo to Portsmouth is staying at 2tph. Best you could hope for is them both being faster between Waterloo and Haslemere, with 1tph fast and 1tph stopper beyond there.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,413
Location
Farnham
It's not going to be half hourly fasts if Waterloo to Portsmouth is staying at 2tph. Best you could hope for is them both being faster between Waterloo and Haslemere, with 1tph fast and 1tph stopper beyond there.
He said it as if it was an improvement, which led me to think he was saying fasts were going up to 2tph, not 2tph in total which is as it is now. The current situation is infuriating.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Who has indicated the last bit? Don't get me wrong the DfT and Treasury want to massively decrease subsidy, but where has anyone said they want subsidy to be less than March 2020 levels. I'm pretty sure that its acknowledged that the DfT will be more in subsidy post covid than pre covid.
I think the Treasury are still in denial.
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
He said it as if it was an improvement, which led me to think he was saying fasts were going up to 2tph, not 2tph in total which is as it is now. The current situation is infuriating.
It's definitely possible to improve the current timetable on the Portsmouth Direct line without increasing the frequency. The down direction would be easy, as the slow service already waits at Haslemere for the fast Haslemere terminator to arrive, simply swapping it so the fast then continues to Portsmouth with the slow instead terminating at Haslemere would be a relatively simple improvement.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
It's not going to be half hourly fasts if Waterloo to Portsmouth is staying at 2tph. Best you could hope for is them both being faster between Waterloo and Haslemere, with 1tph fast and 1tph stopper beyond there.

Spot on!
Involves swapping the 2P leg south of Haslemere with the 1P that terminates at Haslemere.

No extra trains as per the business plan, just tidying up.

It's definitely possible to improve the current timetable on the Portsmouth Direct line without increasing the frequency.

Exactly!
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,413
Location
Farnham
Spot on!
Involves swapping the 2P leg south of Haslemere with the 1P that terminates at Haslemere.

No extra trains as per the business plan, just tidying up.

Exactly!
Okay, so at least we lose Farncombe, Milford and Witley. I can’t lie, I prefer the days of Godalming getting 2tph.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Okay, so at least we lose Farncombe, Milford and Witley. I can’t lie, I prefer the days of Godalming getting 2tph.

With Godalming driving a considerable amount of off-peak revenue on the Direct these days, it makes sense to make the service as accessible to as many passengers as possible! The recovery at Godalming and Petersfield has been far greater than at Haslemere, which is not unsurprising as the former have decent sized populations and the latter relied on ‘Railhead’ commuting.
 
Joined
1 May 2019
Messages
14
Any idea HS1 services from Medway Towns will resume to 2tph off peak? Plus 2tph between Strood and Maidstone on M-F off peak
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
A nightmare as it might take 3 or 4 years before levels of passenger demand stabilise. They can't easily do that when services have been cut in almost random fashion, compounded by short notice cancellations caused by a variety of factors.

I look at the services between Sheffield and Manchester. We received an indicative timetable many months ago based around TPE hourly fast Cleethorpes - Liverpool, EMR hourly fast Norwich/Nottingham - Liverpool and hourly Northern stopping Sheffield- Manchester.

Since that was drawn up the longer term effects of Covid are becoming apparent. Commuting is still massively down. Leisure is up. TPE and EMR struggle to provide a consistent and reliable half hourly fast service with short forms and cancellations added to services still absent from the pre-Covid timetable. Leisure users are quite happy to take longer on cheaper stopping trains.

The indicative timetable had an unwritten caveat. Until the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is nearing completion in late 2023 it may not be possible to deliver the full services as suggested. The Manchester congestion issues may be resolved from December but there are others still needing resolution. As far as I can see the full suggested improvements to the stopping and fast services may not come until December 2023 at the earliest and more likely May 2024. By then the future travel market may be more clear.

December 2022 is but a resting point on a long journey - one that will depend very much on the public purse.

.

As a longtime user of the Hope Valley service, it seems to me that it would be quite good if everything that was supposed to run in the timetable, actually ran !
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,811
Location
Sheffield
As a longtime user of the Hope Valley service, it seems to me that it would be quite good if everything that was supposed to run in the timetable, actually ran !

Hear, hear.

Here are the details of the last 4 weeks of scheduled trains between Sheffield and Manchester. https://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/...tAvg=Mea&MetSpr=RT&MxScDu=&MxSvAg=10&MnScCt=2

Consistently providing the service as advertised, on time and with space has got steadily worse since March 2020.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
He said it as if it was an improvement, which led me to think he was saying fasts were going up to 2tph, not 2tph in total which is as it is now. The current situation is infuriating.

I think the easiest thing if we're stuck with 3tph as the limit, and a complete rewrite isn't an option right now, would be to run:

- one tph as fast (Woking, Guildford, Godalming, Haslemere, Petersfield, Havant, Fratton, PSS, PH);
- another semi-fast (as above but also Clapham and Farncombe; so still viable as a fast-ish option to Portsmouth)
- and a third a stopper in the xx15 or xx45 path, but looped at Guildford rather than Haslemere, and then calling all to Portsmouth.

This would allow even-interval service for Farncombe by changing at Guildford, and would mean two reasonably-fast trains per hour to Portsmouth. Main losers would be Milford and Witley as they would have to change at Guildford or travel on a slow looped service; but this was the case for these stations for most of the 80s and 90s anyway.

The 80s pattern was not dissimilar to this, though it had 2tph at Liphook and Liss. However given they have not enjoyed such a service for many years now, the provision of 2tph would probably be unnecessary.
 
Last edited:

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
2tph at Farncombe off peak definitely needs to be restored. It was never really quiet enough to drop to 1tph really.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
2tph at Farncombe off peak definitely needs to be restored. It was never really quiet enough to drop to 1tph really.
The plan is Farncombe goes back to 2tph
I think the easiest thing if we're stuck with 3tph as the limit, and a complete rewrite isn't an option right now, would be to run:

- one tph as fast (Woking, Guildford, Godalming, Haslemere, Petersfield, Havant, Fratton, PSS, PH);
- another semi-fast (as above but also Clapham and Farncombe; so still viable as a fast-ish option to Portsmouth)
- and a third a stopper in the xx15 or xx45 path, but looped at Guildford rather than Haslemere, and then calling all to Portsmouth.
But that adds an extra train between Haslemere and Portsmouth, which adds cost on a line that is bringing in nowhere near the revenue it used to, the peak travel demand providing the crew (and revenue) to run the off-peak service previously. That high volume of first class annual gold cards from Haslemere has gone and unlikely to return any time soon.

I understand the December 22 plan is an improvement to restore a half-hourly service to Portsmouth which the xx30 as now, the xx45 terminating at Haslemere and the xx00 as now to Guildford, then Farncombe, Godalming, Haslemere and all to Portsmouth.

It’s better spacing for Portsmouth than the current xx30/xx45 but doesn’t increase the cost base on the line as just effectively swaps the 1P and 2P paths at Haslemere.
 
Last edited:

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
The plan is Farncombe goes back to 2tph

But that adds an extra train between Haslemere and Portsmouth, which adds cost on a line that is bringing in nowhere near the revenue it used to, the peak travel demand providing the crew (and revenue) to run the off-peak service previously. That high volume of first class annual gold cards from Haslemere has gone and unlikely to return any time soon.

I understand the December 22 plan is an improvement to restore a half-hourly service to Portsmouth which the xx30 as now, the xx45 terminating at Haslemere and the xx00 as now to Guildford, then Farncombe, Godalming, Haslemere and all to Portsmouth.

It’s better spacing for Portsmouth than the current xx30/xx45 but doesn’t increase the cost base on the line as just effectively swaps the 1P and 2P paths at Haslemere.
Well at least that would be an improvement on the current mess, which was understandable as an emergency response to Covid, but is indefensible as a semi-permanent timetable 18 months later. But if 3tph north of Haslemere and 2tph south of there is the best we'll get for years to come, surely it would be better to reinstate the privatisation-era version with Waterloo departures at even 20 minute intervals? At least that was properly thought out and worked in practice.

It would also be good if SWR could reinstate the long established 23:45 off Waterloo, even if that's instead of the 23:30 rather than additional. At present, cancellation of the 23:45, and of the GWR 22:34 Reading to Gatwick, means that the last train from Reading to stations south of Guildford is at 21:34. The 23:34 from Reading misses any connection at Guildford.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
surely it would be better to reinstate the privatisation-era version with Waterloo departures at even 20 minute intervals? At least that was properly thought out and worked in practice.

Recasting the entire SWML out of Waterloo in with a growing amount of freight is a fairly tall order and you only have to look to the ECML recast and the difficulties encountered in that. At the moment we just don’t have the planning resource in the industry to be recasting timetables all over the country, especially with industrial action sucking up planning resource. In many areas the DfT is waiting to see what happens with passenger numbers as things settle down before making decisions on total recasts.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
Recasting the entire SWML out of Waterloo in with a growing amount of freight is a fairly tall order and you only have to look to the ECML recast and the difficulties encountered in that. At the moment we just don’t have the planning resource in the industry to be recasting timetables all over the country, especially with industrial action sucking up planning resource. In many areas the DfT is waiting to see what happens with passenger numbers as things settle down before making decisions on total recasts.
Well, I've still got an, ahem, "oven-ready" version if anyone in the industry wants to borrow it :lol:

20220724_134233.jpg
(photo of a 1995-6 South West Trains complete paper timetable)

Though in reality I appreciate that other interrelated services have changed significantly since then.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The plan is Farncombe goes back to 2tph

But that adds an extra train between Haslemere and Portsmouth, which adds cost on a line that is bringing in nowhere near the revenue it used to, the peak travel demand providing the crew (and revenue) to run the off-peak service previously. That high volume of first class annual gold cards from Haslemere has gone and unlikely to return any time soon.
I can understand the problems, though it's sad not to see 3tph south of Haslemere. In modern history (back, I think, to electrification in 1937) this has only happened briefly previously: from May 1993 to May 1995 (on the back of a recession, so perhaps comparable with today) and for the 1977/78 timetable (unsure of the reasons).

Hoping, therefore, that the current situation is similarly temporary, like the 1993 to 1995 occasion, and things then return to the norm for the electrification era.

I understand the December 22 plan is an improvement to restore a half-hourly service to Portsmouth which the xx30 as now, the xx45 terminating at Haslemere and the xx00 as now to Guildford, then Farncombe, Godalming, Haslemere and all to Portsmouth.

It’s better spacing for Portsmouth than the current xx30/xx45 but doesn’t increase the cost base on the line as just effectively swaps the 1P and 2P paths at Haslemere.
The main issue I see is the uneven spacing at Farncombe (two in 15 mins, then nothing).

Could they, in theory, implement a variation of this whch utilises the spare path out of Waterloo at xx02 or xx32 (formerly used in the peaks) and run the Haslemere terminator in that path? Perhaps via Cobham if that helps? This would resemble, somewhat, the former xx18 peak extras to Haslemere which immediately followed the xx15, and that would at least give Farncombe its even-interval service back.

As an aside, the September 1994 timetable had some similarities with the proposed pattern above, as it too had one fast to Portsmouth, one semi-fast (all stations south of Haslemere), and a Haslemere terminator (routed via Cobham). With that timetable (working timetable available on the Network Rail site https://history.networkrail.co.uk/uncategorized/SO_506bb63b-dadf-497e-901d-1673556bcffd, see Section WG) the Haslemere terminator was timed to give even interval services at Farncombe and Godalming in the down direction, but not in the up direction.
 
Last edited:

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
London, UK
I can understand the problems, though it's sad not to see 3tph south of Haslemere. In modern history (back, I think, to electrification in 1937) this has only happened briefly previously: from May 1993 to May 1995 (on the back of a recession, so perhaps comparable with today) and for the 1977/78 timetable (unsure of the reasons).

Hoping, therefore, that the current situation is similarly temporary, like the 1993 to 1995 occasion, and things then return to the norm for the electrification era.


The main issue I see is the uneven spacing at Farncombe (two in 15 mins, then nothing).

Could they, in theory, implement a variation of this whch utilises the spare path out of Waterloo at xx02 or xx32 (formerly used in the peaks) and run the Haslemere terminator in that path? Perhaps via Cobham if that helps? This would resemble, somewhat, the former xx18 peak extras to Haslemere which immediately followed the xx15, and that would at least give Farncombe its even-interval service back.

As an aside, the September 1994 timetable had some similarities with the proposed pattern above, as it too had one fast to Portsmouth, one semi-fast (all stations south of Haslemere), and a Haslemere terminator (routed via Cobham). With that timetable (working timetable available on the Network Rail site https://history.networkrail.co.uk/uncategorized/SO_506bb63b-dadf-497e-901d-1673556bcffd, see Section WG) the Haslemere terminator was timed to give even interval services at Farncombe and Godalming in the down direction, but not in the up direction.
The xx02 and xx32 in the peaks are running again

Admittedly only the 1702, 1732 and 1802
 

1018509

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2011
Messages
326
Location
New Milton
Is XC going to re-introduce stopping at Brockenhurst of all trains rather than the miserable 2 per day now?

I never did understand what saving this gave XC.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Well, I've still got an, ahem, "oven-ready" version if anyone in the industry wants to borrow it :lol:

View attachment 118135
(photo of a 1995-6 South West Trains complete paper timetable)

Though in reality I appreciate that other interrelated services have changed significantly since then.

And the dwell times, junction margins, running times and infrastructure at places like Waterloo have also changed massively.

Whilst possible it’s a big job to recast!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
And the dwell times, junction margins, running times and infrastructure at places like Waterloo have also changed massively.

Whilst possible it’s a big job to recast!

So about as oven ready as any other recent government policy!?!?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,266
Is XC going to re-introduce stopping at Brockenhurst of all trains rather than the miserable 2 per day now?

I never did understand what saving this gave XC.
I believe the theory is that it reduces passenger numbers by forcing shorter distance journeys to/from Brockenhurst, eg the college students, to use SWR.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,822
Location
East Anglia
Is XC going to re-introduce stopping at Brockenhurst of all trains rather than the miserable 2 per day now?

I never did understand what saving this gave XC.
I think that any trying to fathom XC reasoning is a pointless exercise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top