Southeastern - Timetable change

[4-SUB 4732]

Not showing in RTT currently anyhow good to see local MPs pushing issues on behalf of constituents

Only hourly and only 50% of what was taken away given back. Typical bluster.

 

[Class 466]

Only hourly and only 50% of what was taken away given back. Typical bluster.

adding a further hourly service on top of the current timetable which has a poor reliablity track so far can only make things better... Be better off taking another look at the metro service entirely.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

adding a further hourly service on top of the current timetable which has a poor reliablity track so far can only make things better... Be better off taking another look at the metro service entirely.

Performance is good off peak though.

 

[PGAT]

Performance is good off peak though.

4tph, something you could only dream for with Southern

 

[YSTrains]

Would they have the Victoria-Dartford services go via Sidcup instead?

 

[evergreenadam]

adding a further hourly service on top of the current timetable which has a poor reliablity track so far can only make things better... Be better off taking another look at the metro service entirely.

I wondered about the logic of an hourly service too, but maybe the best that can be achieved at present.

 

[Stephen42]

I wondered about the logic of an hourly service too, but maybe the best that can be achieved at present.

I'd guess the times would be similar to the peak service, the peak extras are mostly laid on top of the off peak service rather than a separate timetable so running those off peak should be doable.

It's a two hour cycle so only hourly requires 2 drivers/services at a time reducing additional cost. The Southeastern press release makes clear that DfT had to agree to the additions with consideration given to the financial impacts.

We've been listening to customers’ feedback and using journey data to assess how people are travelling, following the introduction of our December 2022 timetable. In light of that, from 22 May 2023, in agreement with the Department for Transport, we are taking action by reinstating a direct off-peak service to Charing Cross on the Bexleyheath line, which will run hourly, Monday to Saturday.

These trains will be in addition to those provided by the current timetable meaning over 300 services will operate each week, directly to and from Charing Cross on the Bexleyheath line.

It's clear that there's substantial demand on the Bexleyheath line for direct services that call at Waterloo East on the way to Charing Cross. Overall, this decision should benefit passengers on the Bexleyheath line and better balance demand across Southeastern’s Metro services, supporting the West End economy.

For taxpayers, this decision balances the need to manage the cost of providing rail services, with the need to generate fare revenue that supports the provision and development of them.

Although this decision relates to a specific part of our network, we're committed to working with customers and stakeholders to develop our timetable in the future. We'll continue to listen as the travel habits of our customers change.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The hourly service is useless. A mere political gesture, and complete nonsense.

 

[evergreenadam]

The hourly service is useless. A mere political gesture, and complete nonsense.

I suppose it’s a start, better than nothing. The two off-peak Cannon Street services per hour will probably get withdrawn at some point in the future and the hourly off-peak Charing Cross service upgraded to half hourly and just accept the risk to performance as being necessary to ensure passenger convenience. It’s obvious to all but Southeastern that if you are only going to run a half hourly off-peak service from this line via London Bridge then the preference would be for it to run to Charing Cross rather than Cannon Street so passengers can walk straight into the West End.

 

[30907]

I suppose it’s a start, better than nothing. The two off-peak Cannon Street services per hour will probably get withdrawn at some point in the future and the hourly off-peak Charing Cross service upgraded to half hourly and just accept the risk to performance as being necessary to ensure passenger convenience.

I thought 4tph offpeak weren't enough?
Incidentally, that would cut Lewisham to New X and CST to 2tph.

 

[hkstudent]

I suppose it’s a start, better than nothing. The two off-peak Cannon Street services per hour will probably get withdrawn at some point in the future and the hourly off-peak Charing Cross service upgraded to half hourly and just accept the risk to performance as being necessary to ensure passenger convenience. It’s obvious to all but Southeastern that if you are only going to run a half hourly off-peak service from this line via London Bridge then the preference would be for it to run to Charing Cross rather than Cannon Street so passengers can walk straight into the West End.

Indeed. Interchange only works only if frequency of both legs are frequent and well spaced enough.

For infrequent service, only direct services would be preferred.
I think the Thameslink programme has killed the more flexibility of route choice from Lewisham to Charing Cross and thus overusing Tanners Hill junction.

I thought 4tph offpeak weren't enough?
Incidentally, that would cut Lewisham to New X and CST to 2tph.

There are only 2tph from Bexleyheath Line to LBG and CST. The remaining 2tph is to VIC.
This is really the worst of both worlds.

Infrequent service to one terminal while forcing people to take the infrequent service to change to a popular destination.

I think there's not much of demand to travel between New Cross / St Johns to Lewisham as there are good enough local bus services.

While the demand of interchanging between London Overground and Southeastern has been much diminished with the operation of Elizabeth Line interchange at Whitechapel that give access to Abbey Wood and Woolwich.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Indeed. Interchange only works only if frequency of both legs are frequent and well spaced enough.

For infrequent service, only direct services would be preferred.
I think the Thameslink programme has killed the more flexibility of route choice from Lewisham to Charing Cross and thus overusing Tanners Hill junction.


There are only 2tph from Bexleyheath Line to LBG and CST. The remaining 2tph is to VIC.
This is really the worst of both worlds.

Infrequent service to one terminal while forcing people to take the infrequent service to change to a popular destination.

I think there's not much of demand to travel between New Cross / St Johns to Lewisham as there are good enough local bus services.

While the demand of interchanging between London Overground and Southeastern has been much diminished with the operation of Elizabeth Line interchange at Whitechapel that give access to Abbey Wood and Woolwich.

For a civilised system to work, you need an almost perfectly evenly-spread 4tph on all the routes, and then anything that fills in those gaps (eg Thameslink) is a bonus, not the reason for a certain timetabling principle.

And that would probably mean someone (either Sidcup, Hayes or Grove Park side) taking the hit on the Victoria service with their full 4tph, but the net benefit of that, including the fact you would make Lewisham the main interchange point, would just have to do.

 

[43066]

For a civilised system to work

I thought we were discussing SE metro?

(written on board a knackered 465 with an ominous pool of liquid on the floor)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I suppose it’s a start, better than nothing. The two off-peak Cannon Street services per hour will probably get withdrawn at some point in the future and the hourly off-peak Charing Cross service upgraded to half hourly and just accept the risk to performance as being necessary to ensure passenger convenience. It’s obvious to all but Southeastern that if you are only going to run a half hourly off-peak service from this line via London Bridge then the preference would be for it to run to Charing Cross rather than Cannon Street so passengers can walk straight into the West End.

NR has spent 100's millions resignalling and relaying all the major jcns over the last 5 years to ensure the service could be delivered then SE decide to simplify it meaning much of these assets now get much less use.

 

[30907]

NR has spent 100's millions resignalling and relaying all the major jcns over the last 5 years to ensure the service could be delivered then SE decide to simplify it meaning much of these assets now get much less use.

But some sort of rejig was on the cards well before Covid. Relaying the junctions didn't make the conflicts easier to manage, but it should make them last reliably longer (in theory).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But some sort of rejig was on the cards well before Covid. Relaying the junctions didn't make the conflicts easier to manage, but it should make them last reliably longer (in theory).

London Bridge panel did a pretty good job for 45 years but since they migrated it to Three Bridges ROC its had its fair share of issues

 

[43066]

London Bridge panel did a pretty good job for 45 years but since they migrated it to Three Bridges ROC its had its fair share of issues

To be honest I’ve never really had the impression that Lewisham junction was particularly unreliable, albeit an obvious bottleneck. I can’t help but think the whole “reducing conflicts” mantra is really a euphemism for thinning out the service to reduce costs.

 

[NorthKent1989]

To be honest I’ve never really had the impression that Lewisham junction was particularly unreliable, albeit an obvious bottleneck. I can’t help but think the whole “reducing conflicts” mantra is really a euphemism for thinning out the service to reduce costs.

Same here, there would occasionally be a three or four minute delay but the time lost would often be made back due to CHX being fast from Lewisham to London Bridge.

I’ve been caught up in more delays in the last few weeks than I ever have been prior to the timetable change.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

To be honest I’ve never really had the impression that Lewisham junction was particularly unreliable, albeit an obvious bottleneck. I can’t help but think the whole “reducing conflicts” mantra is really a euphemism for thinning out the service to reduce costs.

my recollection of an exercise we did on golden assets in Railtrack days they were in top 10 on Kent route for swings per day as many routes need flank protection moves as well

 

[Bald Rick]

my recollection of an exercise we did on golden assets in Railtrack days they were in top 10 on Kent route for swings per day as many routes need flank protection moves as well

Yep. And they were absolutely knackered. Took an awful lot of TLC to keep them going.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yep. And they were absolutely knackered. Took an awful lot of TLC to keep them going.

Theye were originally mid 70's installation although the ironwork, timbers and motors would have been changed multiple times of course (we wrecked one set on a renewal on the ramp for starters!)

 

[Bald Rick]

Theye were originally mid 70's installation although the ironwork, timbers and motors would have been changed multiple times of course (we wrecked one set on a renewal on the ramp for starters!)

not sure about the timbers. Reckon some if not all of them were ‘original’

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

not sure about the timbers. Reckon some if not all of them were ‘original’

that BR organisation new what it was doing i reckon

laid on chippings i recollect

 

[James H]

A certain irony that having spend a billion pounds bringing together the two halves of London Bridge Station, the solution to crowding is to separate out the passengers for each TOC/brand.



(Image shows poster at London Bridge Station about new walking routes to separate SE, TL and Southern passengers)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A certain irony that having spend a billion pounds bringing together the two halves of London Bridge Station, the solution to crowding is to separate out the passengers for each TOC/brand.

View attachment 130990

(Image shows poster at London Bridge Station about new walking routes to separate SE, TL and Southern passengers)

. Guess we will have to see what this means in practice but having forced more need to make changes for SE passengers its another nail in the coffin of the changes. Perhaps they now going to build a mezzanine level between 1-3 and 6-9 or perhaps put the footbridge back in

 

[AlbertBeale]

. Guess we will have to see what this means in practice but having forced more need to make changes for SE passengers its another nail in the coffin of the changes. Perhaps they now going to build a mezzanine level between 1-3 and 6-9 or perhaps put the footbridge back in

I'm not sure that occasional London Bridge users, who're just told to get a train from there to get to wherever in Kent or Sussex or South London, would have any awareness of their train's "brand"; most "normal" non-regular rail users neither know nor care about different brands - they just know it's a train to destination X. Hence if would-be passengers are directed by signs telling therm where to go according to the train's "brand", it won't be at all helpful.

 

[cle]

While the demand of interchanging between London Overground and Southeastern has been much diminished with the operation of Elizabeth Line interchange at Whitechapel that give access to Abbey Wood and Woolwich.

That only covers the Greenwich branch, whose trains never called at New Cross. Unless via loop.

In theory, New Cross could be an Overground interchange for Bexleyheath, Sidcup, Orpington and Hayes lines. Obv it won’t be for all, but Crossrail does not cover these off.

So having calls there to feed LO is very valid. Question is, which ones.

Feels like there should be standardisation. 4tph to the same terminus. People can change at Lewisham or London Bridge (or NX, and Greenwich DLR too) - feels plenty. Everyone works and plays somewhere different. Should ensure a fair spread of quick change options and avoidance of onward tube.

 

[hkstudent]

That only covers the Greenwich branch, whose trains never called at New Cross. Unless via loop.

In theory, New Cross could be an Overground interchange for Bexleyheath, Sidcup, Orpington and Hayes lines. Obv it won’t be for all, but Crossrail does not cover these off.

So having calls there to feed LO is very valid. Question is, which ones.

Feels like there should be standardisation. 4tph to the same terminus. People can change at Lewisham or London Bridge (or NX, and Greenwich DLR too) - feels plenty. Everyone works and plays somewhere different. Should ensure a fair spread of quick change options and avoidance of onward tube.

But given that LO only gets 4tph to New Cross and having poor onwards connection to other SER services, that interchange is not really well used.
Unless it got extended to Lewisham (very unlikely), LO New Cross branch will be treated more like a Surrey Quays turnback sidings.

 

[NorthKent1989]

But given that LO only gets 4tph to New Cross and having poor onwards connection to other SER services, that interchange is not really well used.
Unless it got extended to Lewisham (very unlikely), LO New Cross branch will be treated more like a Surrey Quays turnback sidings.

Maybe I’m misremembering but I’m pretty sure LO planned on sending 2tph to Clapham and a further 2tph to a destination on the Sydenham line, and having the New Cross branch as a peak hour only service?

 

[MotCO]

my recollection of an exercise we did on golden assets in Railtrack days they were in top 10 on Kent route for swings per day as many routes need flank protection moves as well

What are 'flank protection moves'? Is it not allowing trains travelling in two different directions to pass at the same time to allow the flanks (or ends) of the trains to swing out at sharp curves?