Noisy Minorities (Rail User Groups/ Elected Representatives Who Punch Above Their Weight)

[snookertam]

The Cathcart Circle in Glasgow could do with a users group, given that ScotRail are threatening what would appear to be the lowest daytime frequency since electrification in 1961 (aside from prolonged industrial action in the early 2000s)

 

[JamesT]

Not sure what the other 3tph are on top of the existing service. One is presumably the Paddington-Oxford terminator, the other two - the Didcot services?

It would prevent shortish turnbacks at Oxford (15 or 20 mins) and might require an extra unit. Seems ridiculous to give a semi-rural station a metro frequency when the likes of Swaythling and St Denys, more deserving of metro frequencies, are stuck at effectively 1tph.

Not sure London-Worcester needs 2tph either - Worcester is surely too far from London to attract enough people for 2 trains per hour, even in the peak. I will concede that Paddington to Oxford would need more peak services though in an ideal world - I believe that due to pathing issues it's stuck at the off-peak 2tph frequency.

https://researchbriefings.files.par...BUSINESS-CASE-DEC-2019_ISSUE_110120-(002).pdf has 2tph London-Worcester and 2tph Didcot-Hanborough. That appears to mostly be inclusive of the existing service.

Traffic on the A40 and A44 is frequently terrible. There are plans to build a park and ride out at Eynsham to try and alleviate the problems, why not essentially have one at Hanborough, but where the 'ride' doesn't get caught up in the traffic?

 

[nw1]

What the Portsmouth line has always wanted is the 444s back on all services (was it ever the case that the line was solid 444?). They have never been happy since the 444s were redeployed, and weren't happy with the 442s either.

Not solid I don't think, there were always some 450s, particularly in the peak. I do seem to recall pretty much all the off-peak fasts were 444 though at one time, shortly after they were introduced. As they interworked with the slows, one might presume those were 444s too for a while. Note I am not completely sure of this, more like about 90%.

https://researchbriefings.files.par...BUSINESS-CASE-DEC-2019_ISSUE_110120-(002).pdf has 2tph London-Worcester and 2tph Didcot-Hanborough. That appears to mostly be inclusive of the existing service.

Traffic on the A40 and A44 is frequently terrible. There are plans to build a park and ride out at Eynsham to try and alleviate the problems, why not essentially have one at Hanborough, but where the 'ride' doesn't get caught up in the traffic?

Ah OK, If the Didcots can be extended without requiring an extra unit, that seems fair enough. I'm not convinced by 2tph London-Worcester at any time though, except perhaps Friday evenings, and 2tph out to somewhere like Moreton-in-Marsh in peak hours. Is there really such a large flow of people travelling Worcester, and intermediate stations to Oxford, to London and v.v. particularly off peak, to justify any more than an hourly service? Seems unlikely, but willing to be corrected. This would give Worcester the same level of service as places like Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, much larger places closer to London; I would have assumed Worcester looks more to Birmingham as its local employment and cultural centre.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not solid I don't think, there were always some 450s, particularly in the peak. I do seem to recall pretty much all the off-peak fasts were 444 though at one time, shortly after they were introduced. As they interworked with the slows, one might presume those were 444s too for a while. Note I am not completely sure of this, more like about 90%.

I think that 90% is about right, in the May 2006 carriage workings for Portsmouth Harbour, the vast majority of Waterloo trains are 444s, except the via Eastleigh trains are often 450s. It’s possible it would have looked different at Portsmouth and Southsea, ( but I forgot to look… )

 

[A S Leib]

So they don't have those 'express' services anymore? A shame if so, that was an interesting quirk of the Underground system. People from Amersham and Chesham are presumably not too happy though.

(Speaking from Rickmansworth) I don't think it's a massive issue. The Met north of Harrow-on-the-Hill isn't usually very busy outside of times when (semi-)fast trains run, and there's still the Chiltern services. I'd imagine that there's more desire (especially for school commutes) from Northwood and Pinner to Rickmansworth and Amersham (and vice-versa) than there is for people from past Moor Park to get to central London five or ten minutes faster. I also find it easier sometimes to go via Kenton / Northwick Park to get to Watford Junction than to change at Moor Park (or get the bus), which is harder when changing at Harrow-on-the-Hill's necessary.

 

[bramling]

(Speaking from Rickmansworth) I don't think it's a massive issue. The Met north of Harrow-on-the-Hill isn't usually very busy outside of times when (semi-)fast trains run, and there's still the Chiltern services. I'd imagine that there's more desire (especially for school commutes) from Northwood and Pinner to Rickmansworth and Amersham (and vice-versa) than there is for people from past Moor Park to get to central London five or ten minutes faster. I also find it easier sometimes to go via Kenton / Northwick Park to get to Watford Junction than to change at Moor Park (or get the bus), which is harder when changing at Harrow-on-the-Hill's necessary.

The way things work up that end is at peak times the Met is preferred as it offers more chance of a seat. At off-peak times Chiltern is preferred as it's quicker and more comfortable. The outlier is Chesham which doesn't have Chiltern as an alternative.

That said, I've always thought it's still a bit of a rough deal. Not easy to fix though, as if one were to make the Cheshams fast as a compromise then it would completely unbalance all the intervals north of Harrow. The alternative would be a 6tph Watford service, which on the current timetable would unbalance things south of Harrow, and probably be overkill to Watford.

 

[A S Leib]

The alternative would be a 6tph Watford service, which on the current timetable would unbalance things south of Harrow, and probably be overkill to Watford.

I think the plan is for Watford to go up to 6tph and for Amersham to get 4 from Aldgate once the 4 Line Modernisation's done; I doubt that Northwood really needs 12 tph off-peak, even if passenger numbers fully recover, so maybe the extra ones to Moor Park could be semi-/fast? Presumably there isn't enough capacity at Marylebone to put more services to there in.

 

[ABB125]

Not sure London-Worcester needs 2tph either - Worcester is surely too far from London to attract enough people for 2 trains per hour, even in the peak. I will concede that Paddington to Oxford would need more peak services though in an ideal world - I believe that due to pathing issues it's stuck at the off-peak 2tph frequency.

Worcester is the same distance from London as Norwich as the crow flies (albeit a couple of miles longer in rail terms). Norwich has long had a 2tph frequency. 2tph is just about possible on the Cotswold line at the moment (and indeed in the peaks the service is roughly 2tph), but with very little room for late running. (As an example, the booked running time along the single track between Evesham West Junction and Norton Junction is about 14 minutes, with calls at Pershore and Worcestershire Parkway; non-stop it can be done in about 10 minutes. You can therefore see why 2tph in each direction, one stopping at both stations and the other running either fast or calling at WOP, is very tight, with the line occupied for about 50 minutes each hour. Add in manual signalling at Norton Junction (and the fact that it's a single-lead junction), and this clearly isn't sustainable all day!). Of course, this could be improved by building the second high level platform at WOP, allowing trains to pass in the station instead.
Interestingly, the Cotswold Line Task Force report from a few years ago suggested redoubling the line from Evesham to Pershore instead. The cynic in me thinks this is to avoid the "embarrassment" of having to build the second platform at WOP, which should have been built (along with the extra track required) from the start.

However, back on topic, I'd suggest that Worcestershire as a county has done fairly well in recent years, with Worcestershire Parkway and the rebuilt Bromsgrove station (as well as the aforementioned Cotswold re-doubling (though I think pretty much all of that was actually in Gloucestershire/Oxfordshire)); whether that means they're "punching above their weight" remains to be seen though (especially considering that the track layout in Worcester is still the 1970s rationalised one, with rather constricting properties).

 

[nw1]

I think that 90% is about right, in the May 2006 carriage workings for Portsmouth Harbour, the vast majority of Waterloo trains are 444s, except the via Eastleigh trains are often 450s. It’s possible it would have looked different at Portsmouth and Southsea, ( but I forgot to look… )

OK thanks. I'd guess PSS would be similar as the fasts and slows (which terminated at PSS or Haslemere) interworked.

Worcester is the same distance from London as Norwich as the crow flies (albeit a couple of miles longer in rail terms). Norwich has long had a 2tph frequency.

Mind you, Norwich is I think quite a bit bigger than Worcester, and is also the regional 'capital' of East Anglia, so arguably more strongly warrants a premium service to London.

 

[alangla]

As part of the Stirling/Dunblane/Alloa electrification a stabling and cleaning facility was to be provided on the southern approach to Stirling station on available land by the running line.

The local residents in the area fought incredibly hard to prevent planning permission for the facility to be granted, and won. They argued that the problem would be overnight noise when in reality it was simply paranoia about property prices. When it was put to them that the facility was about improving transport links to/from Stirling, and that as it was an electric train stabling point there would be minimal noise, these fell on deaf ears (excuse the pun…). These were comparatively wealthy people with the time, determination and dedication to prevent a project for wider public good from going ahead. Next to none of them were rail users. They had bought their expensive houses and the rest of the world be damned.

I can partially understand some of the concern in that area. Was it not the case that when SAK was (re)built, the residents around Causewayhead on the other side of Stirling were promised something along the lines of "oh it'll be lightweight DMUs and the odd coal train during the day, nothing at night" only to find loaded HTAs rumbling (and banging their wheelflats) and 66s at full power past their houses every hour, 24 hours a day?

It was silly though - If Polmaise depot had gone where I think it was going to go then it's basically empty land & there's nothing really nearby.

 

[stuu]

The way things work up that end is at peak times the Met is preferred as it offers more chance of a seat. At off-peak times Chiltern is preferred as it's quicker and more comfortable. The outlier is Chesham which doesn't have Chiltern as an alternative.

That said, I've always thought it's still a bit of a rough deal. Not easy to fix though, as if one were to make the Cheshams fast as a compromise then it would completely unbalance all the intervals north of Harrow. The alternative would be a 6tph Watford service, which on the current timetable would unbalance things south of Harrow, and probably be overkill to Watford.

When I lived in Pinner in the early 2000s the Watford service was 6tph, wasn't it reduced because the Amersham/Cheshams were no longer running on the fast lines?

 

[AM9]

I think that 90% is about right, in the May 2006 carriage workings for Portsmouth Harbour, the vast majority of Waterloo trains are 444s, except the via Eastleigh trains are often 450s. It’s possible it would have looked different at Portsmouth and Southsea, ( but I forgot to look… )

I know the reason why some passengers get so obsessed about 'end doors' on trains, but given that the use of 23m stock like the 444s has resulted in all desiros being limited to 40mph, why does the TOC not explain to them that their craving for the 444s causes an everlasting extension to journey times for all direct line passengers south of the tunnel (i.e. even if they 'suffereing' travelling in 20m cars with 1/3 2/3 doors.
If the 458s remove all 444s from the direct line, the speed limit through the tunnel could be lifted for alll trains. When the pressure groups start whingeing about the change they should be made aware of the removal of the self-imposed degrading of the service.

 

[bramling]

I know the reason why some passengers get so obsessed about 'end doors' on trains, but given that the use of 23m stock like the 444s has resulted in all desiros being limited to 40mph, why does the TOC not explain to them that their craving for the 444s causes an everlasting extension to journey times for all direct line passengers south of the tunnel (i.e. even if they 'suffereing' travelling in 20m cars with 1/3 2/3 doors.
If the 458s remove all 444s from the direct line, the speed limit through the tunnel could be lifted for alll trains. When the pressure groups start whingeing about the change they should be made aware of the removal of the self-imposed degrading of the service.

Whilst I largely agree with the sentiments of this, I’m not sure banning 444s from the line would be viable. At the very least the line is a diversionary route for Guildford to Eastleigh / Southampton, and as such 444s will need to go down there from time to time. I don’t think that could be removed without imposing undue inflexibility on the railway as a whole.

I don’t think it’s the end doors which are the big bugbear for the Portsmouth Direct users to be honest. The big issue is the 3+2, and mainly facing layout, the consequence of which presumably means there squashed in for a long(ish) journey, which wouldn’t be the case on a 444.

As I’ve said elsewhere, to be fair I don’t think this gripe is entirely unreasonable, but could be solved by having a dedicated fleet of 450s (or 458s, as is presumably happening) with a slightly less dense layout. If they *then* start moaning about the door positions then that’s another matter entirely and I’d lose sympathy!

It isn’t like the line has been lavished with new stock over the years, they waited their turn for the CIGs to be replaced (not that personally I’d moan about having to commute on those!), got their new trains for a few years and then has then taken away to allow the 442s to be removed. So all in all it’s probably fair to say it hasn’t been the best deal.

(I should add that this isn’t a route I use nor have any association with, so I don’t have any vested interest except as an observer - indeed from a selfish point of view on off-peak lightly loaded trains I’d prefer a 450!).

 

[nw1]

Whilst I largely agree with the sentiments of this, I’m not sure banning 444s from the line would be viable. At the very least the line is a diversionary route for Guildford to Eastleigh / Southampton, and as such 444s will need to go down there from time to time. I don’t think that could be removed without imposing undue inflexibility on the railway as a whole.

I don’t think it’s the end doors which are the big bugbear for the Portsmouth Direct users to be honest. The big issue is the 3+2, and mainly facing layout, the consequence of which presumably means there squashed in for a long(ish) journey, which wouldn’t be the case on a 444.

As I’ve said elsewhere, to be fair I don’t think this gripe is entirely unreasonable, but could be solved by having a dedicated fleet of 450s (or 458s, as is presumably happening) with a slightly less dense layout. If they *then* start moaning about the door positions then that’s another matter entirely and I’d lose sympathy!

It isn’t like the line has been lavished with new stock over the years, they waited their turn for the CIGs to be replaced (not that personally I’d moan about having to commute on those!), got their new trains for a few years and then has then taken away to allow the 442s to be removed. So all in all it’s probably fair to say it hasn’t been the best deal.

I do remember that the 442s disappeared after a few years, though well before they were moved for good from SWT. For a while around 2000 it was pure slam-door stock once again, though admittedly almost purely CIGs and CEPs for a while, but VEPs came in later on, even on fast services. Presumably the 442s were needed to double-up SWML services which had become busier in the late-90s boom.

But with CIGs and 442s (express stock) being the rule for most of the time before 2004, and before that CORs (way before my time but I believe they were considered express stock too) I can fully see why Direct travellers wanted to maintain express stock for the fasts - and maintain that the 444 is the ideal unit for these currently. On the other hand using 444s for the slows seems a waste - it was done for diagramming purposes - I would have brought in 450s on the slows and interwork both the 444s on the fasts and the 450s on the slows with other services on the mainline (rather than with each other) if it reduces platform occupancy at Waterloo.

 

[AM9]

Whilst I largely agree with the sentiments of this, I’m not sure banning 444s from the line would be viable. At the very least the line is a diversionary route for Guildford to Eastleigh / Southampton, and as such 444s will need to go down there from time to time. I don’t think that could be removed without imposing undue inflexibility on the railway as a whole.

I did think of the diversionary route issue whilst typing my last post, but I presumed that it wouldn't happen that often - mostly at weekends when without a peak, a TSR would make the situation no worse than it is now. It would still be possible to run 23m stock under those conditions.

I don’t think it’s the end doors which are the big bugbear for the Portsmouth Direct users to be honest. The big issue is the 3+2, and mainly facing layout, the consequence of which presumably means there squashed in for a long(ish) journey, which wouldn’t be the case on a 444.

I seem to remember both mentioned maybe to try and prevent 2+2 450s (if they were made available) so that a 12-car consist couldn't turn up with one or two '2+3 sets to make the number up. I've travelled up and down the direct for both work and family reasons on the line between 1968 and 1993, so experienced both 404s, BIG/CIGs and the occasional VEP. Although the direct is technically an inter-city route, the SR electrified network very much blurs the line between outer suburban and inter-city anyway.

 

[nw1]

I seem to remember both mentioned maybe to try and prevent 2+2 450s (if they were made available) so that a 12-car consist couldn't turn up with one or two '2+3 sets to make the number up. I've travelled up and down the direct for both work and family reasons on the line between 1968 and 1993, so experienced both 404s, BIG/CIGs and the occasional VEP. Although the direct is technically an inter-city route, the SR electrified network very much blurs the line between outer suburban and inter-city anyway.

That was the class number for CORs?

Would have been interesting if they had persisted into the internet age and had a reputation for not showing up.

Seriously though if 2x2 450s could be formed that seems like an alternative good plan. Working with maybe one 2x3 wouldn't be a bad thing; as long as the service was predominantly 2x2 that would be fine. Some peak-time fasts (though generally additionals rather than the standard hourly buffet diagrams) were operated with CIG/VEP combos.

 

[AM9]

That was the class number for CORs?

Would have been interesting if they had persisted into the internet age and had a reputation for not showing up.

Yes that's right, both the composites and the buffets (was that 4-BUF?). I think that some of them had difficulties getting to their actual retirement dates.

 

[adrock1976]

David Steel, a Lib Dem MP who lived fairly close to Tweedbank lobbied hard for Borders line to reopen. Right decision.

Then when he went to the House of Lords he lobbied even harder for large daily attendance allowances for Lords & huge pay offs when Lords retire. Both of which he won. Wrong decision.

David Steel also ran as an MSP for the Scottish Parliament in its first elections back in 1999.

As he became the Presiding Officer (similar role to the Speaker of the Commons), he had to resign his political party affiliation.

 

[swt_passenger]

Although the direct is technically an inter-city route, the SR electrified network very much blurs the line between outer suburban and inter-city anyway.

The Portsmouth Direct is described as a “London and SE Commuter” route in NR route specification documents.

…