• 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!

Southeastern - Timetable change

Status
Not open for further replies.

hkstudent

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
1,363
Location
SE London
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?
The 2tph + 2tph services are meant to be new services on East London Line after the signalling upgrade at ELL Core.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON is working to increase capacity on the East London line stretch of London Overground. Work is underway to increase frequencies from the current 16 trains per hour (tph) to 18tph, with new funding now announced to improve this further to 20tph in the future.

(2019) TfL retains aspirations to further increase frequency on the ELL to 24tph, which would require a switch from conventional signalling to a digital railway solution involving automatic train operation on the core section. This forms part of TfL’s strategic case for metroisation that was published earlier this year and covered enhancements on this and a number of suburban routes.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tester

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2020
Messages
565
Location
Watford
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?
Flank protection is a signalling term covering various ways of protecting a signalled route from incursions by other trains.

One of the ways is to move points, over and above those the signalled train will run over, to divert a 'rogue' train away from the route.

In complex areas this can amount to a significant number of additional point movements, sometimes more than the route itself requires.

Flank protection requirements have varied over the years, but the trend now seems to be 'more'.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,203
Location
UK
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?
No, that would be down to gauge clearance - though the concept of two trains not being allowed to pass each other, despite a line being double track (or more), isn't novel; see for example the Tay Bridge.

Flank protection is connected with the requirement that the overlap beyond a signal (a distance affording a safety margin in case of a SPAD - typically 50-200 yards) must be clear of obstruction before the preceding signal can be cleared. At junctions such as those at Lewisham, signals will often be sufficiently close that their overlaps extend over the junction. This means that the route of the overlap may have to be changed in order to allow a conflicting move - this is referred to as 'swinging' the overlap.

For example, if you have a train from Blackheath heading towards Nunhead, this would conflict with the overlap that signal TL253 has if the points at the junction are 'normal' (straight ahead). Therefore you couldn't have set a route to TL253 whilst the train from Blackheath has a route set over the junction. However, by changing the points to 'reverse', i.e. swinging the overlap so that it heads towards platform 4 at Lewisham, both movements can happen simultaneously.

Because of this overlap extending over the junction and the number of conflicting moves that there used to be, the points at the junction used to be swung hundreds of times each day. Any loss of detection or mechanical failure on any one of those occasions means the job is likely to be stopped...
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,106
Location
Taunton or Kent
No, that would be down to gauge clearance - though the concept of two trains not being allowed to pass each other, despite a line being double track (or more), isn't novel; see for example the Tay Bridge.

Flank protection is connected with the requirement that the overlap beyond a signal (a distance affording a safety margin in case of a SPAD - typically 50-200 yards) must be clear of obstruction before the preceding signal can be cleared. At junctions such as those at Lewisham, signals will often be sufficiently close that their overlaps extend over the junction. This means that the route of the overlap may have to be changed in order to allow a conflicting move - this is referred to as 'swinging' the overlap.

For example, if you have a train from Blackheath heading towards Nunhead, this would conflict with the overlap that signal TL253 has if the points at the junction are 'normal' (straight ahead). Therefore you couldn't have set a route to TL253 whilst the train from Blackheath has a route set over the junction. However, by changing the points to 'reverse', i.e. swinging the overlap so that it heads towards platform 4 at Lewisham, both movements can happen simultaneously.

Because of this overlap extending over the junction and the number of conflicting moves that there used to be, the points at the junction used to be swung hundreds of times each day. Any loss of detection or mechanical failure on any one of those occasions means the job is likely to be stopped...
Is this the same reason at Sidcup the down signal controlling access to the turnback siding AND the preceding signal are set to danger when the siding has a train entering/leaving it? During peak times, and/or engineering work closing the line beyond Sidcup towards Dartford, often a train has to wait outside Sidcup for a train to either leave the siding before it can enter the station, even though no train is occupying platform 2.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,203
Location
UK
Is this the same reason at Sidcup the down signal controlling access to the turnback siding AND the preceding signal are set to danger when the siding has a train entering/leaving it? During peak times, and/or engineering work closing the line beyond Sidcup towards Dartford, often a train has to wait outside Sidcup for a train to either leave the siding before it can enter the station, even though no train is occupying platform 2.
I'm not very familiar with the exact arrangements there, but it's a common arrangement with turnback sidings. The overlap from the starting signal at the end of platform 2 will likely extend over the pointwork to/from the siding and the trailing crossover. Thus a train can't be signalled into the station whilst a train is entering or exiting the siding.
 

boiledbeans2

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2020
Messages
517
Location
UK
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)
Overcrowding at London Bridge was on 22:30 BBC London on Friday.

It can be re-watched here if you have a free BBC account (it starts from the 2nd half of the video):
 

jnjkerbin

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2012
Messages
842
Location
Down south
Can't see this being discussed anywhere else...

It seems that earlier this evening the 1740 Charing X - Sevenoaks broke down at Hither Green blocking the junction with the Sidcup line, leading to a number of trains coming to a stand. It seems a short while later, the power was switched off due to multple tresspass incidents, presumably due to passengers egressing onto the track. This is of course just a few miles down the line from Lewisham, where multiple trains were stranded in the snow in 2018, which led to mass self-detrainments and an RAIB investigation.

Charing X was a complete mess still at 2130 with trains being announced, only for them to have no driver to take them back out, with passengers being left onboard with no information that the train they were sitting on had been cancelled.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,184
Location
Surrey
Can't see this being discussed anywhere else...

It seems that earlier this evening the 1740 Charing X - Sevenoaks broke down at Hither Green blocking the junction with the Sidcup line, leading to a number of trains coming to a stand. It seems a short while later, the power was switched off due to multple tresspass incidents, presumably due to passengers egressing onto the track. This is of course just a few miles down the line from Lewisham, where multiple trains were stranded in the snow in 2018, which led to mass self-detrainments and an RAIB investigation.

Charing X was a complete mess still at 2130 with trains being announced, only for them to have no driver to take them back out, with passengers being left onboard with no information that the train they were sitting on had been cancelled.
Oh and add the signalling (barely 5 years old) falling over at Charing Cross this morning and collapsing the service till late morning
 

Stephen42

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2020
Messages
252
Location
London
That doesn't seem accurate given the May 2023 timetable has more trains than December 2022 one (primarily from the Bexleyheath off peak Charing Cross services). The evening peak train from Blackfriars to the Sidcup line has moved to Charing Cross presumably to space people out more at London Bridge.

From the Southeastern session at Greenwich council overall financial impact is the key, the Bexleyheath changes the additional funding was given as the expected revenue increase would cover the cost. The Sidcup loop services didn't have the same case so isn't being reintroduced (aside from an extra direct train in the morning peak).
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
Oh and add the signalling (barely 5 years old) falling over at Charing Cross this morning and collapsing the service till late morning
Slight pedantry, signalling at Charing X was never replaced, and is still the original stuff installed in the 60s (?). Everything between the buffers and Waterloo East is “old”
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,261
Slight pedantry, signalling at Charing X was never replaced, and is still the original stuff installed in the 60s (?). Everything between the buffers and Waterloo East is “old”

I’m afraid that’s not correct. It was resignalled, albeit with Signals in exactly the same place. There are new interlockings in the equipment room, new cabling and ground equipment. All done in 2016/17. I supppose it is possible that the same signal heads are used, but I don’t remember.

Previous resignalling in 1976.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
I’m afraid that’s not correct. It was resignalled, albeit with Signals in exactly the same place. There are new interlockings in the equipment room, new cabling and ground equipment. All done in 2016/17. I supppose it is possible that the same signal heads are used, but I don’t remember.

Previous resignalling in 1976.
CharingX interlocking is still RRI/WestPAC (the area that failed the other day, not the Country end stuff covering Waterloo - London Bridge), was the interlocking replaced like for like under Thameslink then? I know it’s due for renewal in the next few years.

I know Cannon St was ’relocked’, and things replaced, but everything staying as it was location wise
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,261
CharingX interlocking is still RRI/WestPAC (the area that failed the other day, not the Country end stuff covering Waterloo - London Bridge), was the interlocking replaced like for like under Thameslink then? I know it’s due for renewal in the next few years.

I know Cannon St was ’relocked’, and things replaced, but everything staying as it was location wise

you’ve got me there, I’m now going to have to check my records! My memory isn’t what it was…
 

hkstudent

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
1,363
Location
SE London
That doesn't seem accurate given the May 2023 timetable has more trains than December 2022 one (primarily from the Bexleyheath off peak Charing Cross services). The evening peak train from Blackfriars to the Sidcup line has moved to Charing Cross presumably to space people out more at London Bridge.

From the Southeastern session at Greenwich council overall financial impact is the key, the Bexleyheath changes the additional funding was given as the expected revenue increase would cover the cost. The Sidcup loop services didn't have the same case so isn't being reintroduced (aside from an extra direct train in the morning peak).
Seems that as a amateur thinking, would it be better to remove the Blackheath - Charlton service and replace that with a Cannon Street - Slade Green - Crayford - Cannon Street service to boost up service on Greenwich side meanwhile having Sidcup Line gaining loop service.
In comparison, the demand to Darrford or beyond from Inner / Outer London by rail is less than intra London movements
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,914
Funny how Southeastern/DfT have probably lost more money just by this short sighted and pointless timetable, on the flip side, the Elizabeth line is now standing room from Abbey Wood to Woolwich and barely enough room by the time it reaches Custom House, now one wonders if this would be the case had SE/DfT reverted back to its pre covid timetable.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,184
Location
Surrey
Steve White quoted in this article about the loss of Cannon St rounder service would cost £5m to bring back

https://853.london/2023/03/22/link-...million-to-bring-back-southeastern-boss-says/

Southeastern cannot restore direct trains between New Eltham and the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood because it would cost £5 million, the rail company’s managing director said last night.

Steve White appealed to Greenwich councillors to help him build a case to get government funding to bring back the services, which were scrapped in December as part of cuts to services.
 

LBMPSB

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2019
Messages
133
Rather ironic when Southeasterns new timetable actually forces passengers to change between Charing Cross & Cannon Street trains at London Bridge, how do they separate these passengers that have to move between platforms 1,2 & 3 to and from platforms 6,7,8 & 9 crossing the path of Thameslink passenger accessing platform 4 & 5?

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.
Passengers are very aware of train brandings because their tickets can be specific to a TOC. It causes endless confusion at Hitchin when a Thameslink train comes in formed of Class 387 Great Northern stock, many passengers feel they cannot use it as they have a Thameslink ticket. Likewise on other routes where there are several TOCs, ie London to Brighton, whilst all GTR, Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink all have different ticket pricing which can preclude passsengers from using other TOCs trains. Hence why the advent of Great British Railways, like TfL trains, one branding, one ticketing system, despite the fact each line is operated by different private companies.

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.
Passengers are very aware of train brandings because their tickets can be specific to a TOC. It causes endless confusion at Hitchin when a Thameslink train comes in formed of Class 387 Great Northern stock, many passengers feel they cannot use it as they have a Thameslink ticket. Likewise on other routes where there are several TOCs, ie London to Brighton, whilst all GTR, Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink all have different ticket pricing which can preclude passsengers from using other TOCs trains. Hence why the advent of Great British Railways, like TfL trains, one branding, one ticketing system, despite the fact each line is operated by different private companies.

I’m afraid that’s not correct. It was resignalled, albeit with Signals in exactly the same place. There are new interlockings in the equipment room, new cabling and ground equipment. All done in 2016/17. I supppose it is possible that the same signal heads are used, but I don’t remember.

Previous resignalling in 1976.
I am afraid you are not correct. Charing Cross interlocking is still the original West PAC locking of 1976 to between Belverdere Raod & Waterloo East. Under Thameslink, it was recontrolled by Westcad and migrated from London Bridge MPSB (NX) to Three Bridge ROC (WestCad). Country side of Waterloo to North Kent East Junction (roughly) was a new layout and resignalled fully. Charing Cross was due to be resignalled, as was Cannon Street, but the issue with resignalling is, new standards have to be complied with and if those standards were put in place, it was highly likely the train service might had to have been reduced in those termini. So the decision was taken "why change something that works" for the service required, just renew bits as required. Charing Cross and Cannon Street were both recontrolled, with existing signalling layout. Cannon Street which was SSI was re-locked. All signals on the ground, whilst still in the same positions with the same numbers, were only modernised by having their signal heads replaced with LED heads. Likewise the rest of London Bridge MPSB was recontrolled only and migrated to Three Bridge ROC. London Bridge Terminal was resignalled. The recontrolled areas had new LED signal heads, and some had track circuits replaced with axle counters, but is still the old locking that existed at London Bridge.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,261
I am afraid you are not correct. Charing Cross interlocking is still the original West PAC locking of 1976 to between Belverdere Raod & Waterloo East. Under Thameslink, it was recontrolled by Westcad and migrated from London Bridge MPSB (NX) to Three Bridge ROC (WestCad). Country side of Waterloo to North Kent East Junction (roughly) was a new layout and resignalled fully. Charing Cross was due to be resignalled, as was Cannon Street, but the issue with resignalling is, new standards have to be complied with and if those standards were put in place, it was highly likely the train service might had to have been reduced in those termini. So the decision was taken "why change something that works" for the service required, just renew bits as required. Charing Cross and Cannon Street were both recontrolled, with existing signalling layout. Cannon Street which was SSI was re-locked. All signals on the ground, whilst still in the same positions with the same numbers, were only modernised by having their signal heads replaced with LED heads. Likewise the rest of London Bridge MPSB was recontrolled only and migrated to Three Bridge ROC. London Bridge Terminal was resignalled. The recontrolled areas had new LED signal heads, and some had track circuits replaced with axle counters, but is still the old locking that existed at London Bridge.

Yes I realise that now. :oops:

Although some speed limits did change at Cannon St, as a result of the revisited signal risk assessments And some short overlaps.
 

LBMPSB

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2019
Messages
133
Yes I realise that now. :oops:

Although some speed limits did change at Cannon St, as a result of the revisited signal risk assessments And some short overlaps.
Yes, they dropped the line speed from 20 to 15mph in Cannon Street and some TPWS were fitted before Signals rather than at the Signals to allow for the sub-standard overlaps. Line speed has made no difference to the service,but the TPWS issue results in trains sitting back from red signals, tailing across pointwork in rear, stopping other train movements until it moves forward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top