|
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303317.stm
The new timetable has obviously had an effect, but is it really the timetable recast or just longer journey times that are to thank for the improvement? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303317.stm The new timetable has obviously had an effect, but is it really the timetable recast or just longer journey times that are to thank for the improvement? As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and Basingstoke is more than just coincidental.... |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:47:42 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303317.stm The new timetable has obviously had an effect, but is it really the timetable recast or just longer journey times that are to thank for the improvement? I'd have hoped for more than 90% seeing the time trains I've been wait at stations. 5 minutes at Epsom in the evening is rather excessive. In the morning there's at least a minutes wait at Motspur Park and that can't be to give time for everyone to board. Don't think the number reaches double figures! Dave |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
David wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:47:42 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303317.stm The new timetable has obviously had an effect, but is it really the timetable recast or just longer journey times that are to thank for the improvement? I'd have hoped for more than 90% seeing the time trains I've been wait at stations. 5 minutes at Epsom in the evening is rather excessive. In the morning there's at least a minutes wait at Motspur Park and that can't be to give time for everyone to board. Don't think the number reaches double figures! A major shortfall of the punctuality system seems to be that it only records arrival at the final destination - which seems odd, as given the computerised departure board system, I'd imagine departures from almost all intermediate points are already measured. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
"James" wrote
Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. Instead they'd have stopped at a signal behind one that did. Peter |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On 28 Feb 2005 10:33:10 -0800, alan b wrote:
As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and Basingstoke is more than just coincidental.... Could you clarify - were you previously on the fast lines, or in front of the stoppers? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10754884.html (ex-GWR pannier tank 7760 on the turntable at Tyseley in 1987) |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
In message , James
writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. I get a mini-bus an hour if I'm lucky, yet you moan. -- Clive. |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ...
"James" wrote Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. Instead they'd have stopped at a signal behind one that did. Peter So cynical. At least half the time, it would get on with it, make quick stops at Clapham and Vauxhall, then sit outside Waterloo waiting to get across into Platform 1 whilst something leaves Platform 2. J |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Clive Coleman wrote in message ...
In message , James writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. I get a mini-bus an hour if I'm lucky, yet you moan. The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section. They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with it. Otherwise, they will deserve a reputation for being slow. J |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
James wrote:
Clive Coleman wrote in message ... In message , James writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. I get a mini-bus an hour if I'm lucky, yet you moan. The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section. They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with it. Otherwise, they will deserve a reputation for being slow. Dwell times of 15-20 seconds are probably not achievable with only 2 doors per car. I'm not sure what you mean by "simply getting on with it". Do you mean running without a timetable? That would cause chaos at Waterloo! In any case, SWT's services aren't frequent enough to abolish the public timetable, and if you publish one, passengers will expect you to keep to it. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Chris Tolley wrote in message . ..
On 28 Feb 2005 10:33:10 -0800, alan b wrote: As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and Basingstoke is more than just coincidental.... Could you clarify - were you previously on the fast lines, or in front of the stoppers? You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main! |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On 3 Mar 2005 01:10:13 -0800, alan b wrote:
You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main! I've often wondered about this kind of thing myself, having observed some of the situations you describe. My logic say that even though a 165 can get from 0-75 reasonably quickly, it won't actually catch up with a freightliner that does 75 all the way from Reading to Basingstoke... -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767298.html (4TC unit 8023 on the Weymouth Tramway on 31 Dec 1989) |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote:
Clive Coleman wrote in message ... In message , James writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section. What, like every other TOC operating in London? They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with it. I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every 5 minutes or less. tom -- Operate all mechanisms! |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Tom Anderson wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote: Clive Coleman wrote in message ... In message , James writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section. What, like every other TOC operating in London? They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with it. I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every 5 minutes or less. Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:28:44 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote: Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). Rather like a German S-Bahn? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote: Clive Coleman wrote in message ... In message , James writes Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even have stopped there. The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section. They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with it. I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every 5 minutes or less. Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do Bingo. (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round here? The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough just with people from south of the river. tom -- GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- ntk |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do Bingo. (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round here? Trains to Guildford, Woking, and Dorking all use the slow lines. Not enough demand at the country end to justify a metro service, and not enough capacity on the fast lines (not to mention large numbers of passengers using Clapham Junction and Wimbledon). The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough just with people from south of the river. Possibly the only way to make my current journey even more difficult ;-) Ian |
SWT on the network
Hang on...
What about where there is only an up and a down line - or worse, the mainline goes to bi-directional single track. The Waterloo - Portsmouth and Winchester/Eastleigh-Portsmouth services frequently wait outside Botley for an up freight service. How can this be right?! Why don't Network Rail reinstate the double track through the Fareham tunnels? Cost, I suppose. As a comment, I have noticed that the new and improved SWT service from Fareham-Southampton Central has increased from 20 mins to 25 mins in length, with no additional stops! That's how SWT have increased punctuality. It should be noted that Southern still haven't managed to get it right on the same route! "alan b" wrote in message om... Chris Tolley wrote in message . .. On 28 Feb 2005 10:33:10 -0800, alan b wrote: As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and Basingstoke is more than just coincidental.... Could you clarify - were you previously on the fast lines, or in front of the stoppers? You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main! |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Ian Harding wrote in message ...
Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do Bingo. (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round here? Trains to Guildford, Woking, and Dorking all use the slow lines. Not enough demand at the country end to justify a metro service, and not enough capacity on the fast lines (not to mention large numbers of passengers using Clapham Junction and Wimbledon). The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough just with people from south of the river. Possibly the only way to make my current journey even more difficult ;-) Ian Separating the Main Slow Lines out would be relatively easy. There would be little bits of track-sharing with other trains on the outskirts (rather like the Bakerloo Line does). There would be a cycle of four destinations: - Shepperton - Chessington South - Hampton Court - Epsom each of which could run every 10 minutes (so better frequencies than Mill Hill East gets, therefore no need for a public timetable). The only bits which would be shared with other services would be the Epsom station area (with services from Victoria and London Bridge to the country) and Kingston to Teddington (with services to Waterloo via Richmond). People from the country who insist on Waterloo over Victoria would have a nice easy cross-platform interchange at Epsom. 42 via Cobham trains would *all* use the Fast Lines. As for dwell times, 15-20 seconds could be done at Earlsfield and most stations from Raynes Park outwards (with obvious exceptions, including Kingston, Surbiton, and Epsom). The Windsor Lines of course wouldn't be separable into metro and long distance - they are laid out in a way that's almost as bad as the Central Section. If all else fails, there's always the bus timetable approach to timetabling - only timetable the first and last stops (and maybe a one or two important intermediate ones). James. |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
In article ,
James wrote: If all else fails, there's always the bus timetable approach to timetabling - only timetable the first and last stops (and maybe a one or two important intermediate ones). Before WWII many of the Southern suburban lines showed trains as being "at frequent intervals until ...". -- __ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________ |__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC | || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines ___________________________/ |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
"James" wrote in message om... Ian Harding wrote in message ... Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like Crossrail hopes to do Bingo. (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively easy). Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round here? Trains to Guildford, Woking, and Dorking all use the slow lines. Not enough demand at the country end to justify a metro service, and not enough capacity on the fast lines (not to mention large numbers of passengers using Clapham Junction and Wimbledon). The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough just with people from south of the river. Possibly the only way to make my current journey even more difficult ;-) Ian Separating the Main Slow Lines out would be relatively easy. There would be little bits of track-sharing with other trains on the outskirts (rather like the Bakerloo Line does). There would be a cycle of four destinations: - Shepperton - Chessington South - Hampton Court - Epsom each of which could run every 10 minutes (so better frequencies than Mill Hill East gets, therefore no need for a public timetable). That would be 24 tph on the slow tracks, compared with the present 16 tph, and you wouldn't be serving the Woking or Guildford lines. So you would have to add more trains on the fast tracks, which are also already at capacity. The existing peak service is limited by dwell times at stations like Wimbledon. Besides, do Chessington or Hampton Court really need more than their present half-hourly services? If the present service is too crowded, more capacity could be provided by extending platforms or running double-deck trains. Regards, David. The only bits which would be shared with other services would be the Epsom station area (with services from Victoria and London Bridge to the country) and Kingston to Teddington (with services to Waterloo via Richmond). People from the country who insist on Waterloo over Victoria would have a nice easy cross-platform interchange at Epsom. 42 via Cobham trains would *all* use the Fast Lines. As for dwell times, 15-20 seconds could be done at Earlsfield and most stations from Raynes Park outwards (with obvious exceptions, including Kingston, Surbiton, and Epsom). The Windsor Lines of course wouldn't be separable into metro and long distance - they are laid out in a way that's almost as bad as the Central Section. If all else fails, there's always the bus timetable approach to timetabling - only timetable the first and last stops (and maybe a one or two important intermediate ones). James. |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
"David Fairthorne" wrote in message ... That would be 24 tph on the slow tracks, compared with the present 16 tph, and you wouldn't be serving the Woking or Guildford lines. So you would have to add more trains on the fast tracks, which are also already at capacity. The existing peak service is limited by dwell times at stations like Wimbledon. Besides, do Chessington or Hampton Court really need more than their present half-hourly services? If the present service is too crowded, more capacity could be provided by extending platforms or running double-deck trains. Regards, David. Stagecoach wanted to increase platform lengths as part of their new franchise, but the SRA blocked it. The idea was to run 10-car suburban sets by re-forming the 455s as 5-cars and using the proposed 5-car 450/2 build. It hasn't happened, the 455s are staying as 4-cars and the 450/2 Desiro order for 32 sets has mutated into 40 4-car sets, 30 of which are going to West Coast. |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:09:21 -0500, David Fairthorne wrote:
If the present service is too crowded, more capacity could be provided by extending platforms or running double-deck trains. I've often wondered if DD trains really do help that much. Sure they may move more people, but it also takes rather longer for the people to get on and off. Is there any definitive evidence on this matter? -- (The changing appearance of the Gatwick Express service...) http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767288.html (1980: 4VEG unit 7910) http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680299.html (1998: 73 203 + coaches) http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11218102.html (2005: Juniper unit 06) |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:16:04 +0000, Chris Tolley
wrote: I've often wondered if DD trains really do help that much. Sure they may move more people, but it also takes rather longer for the people to get on and off. Is there any definitive evidence on this matter? Not sure, but given that in a 26m UIC gauge coach you only get about 1.5 times the single-decker capacity due to space taken up by what would be underfloor equipment, staircases and wider doors, if we were stuck with 20m British-gauge coaches you'd get even less. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
SWT on the network
"wjm1" wrote in message
... | Hang on... | | What about where there is only an up and a down line - or worse, the | mainline goes to bi-directional single track. The Waterloo - Portsmouth and | Winchester/Eastleigh-Portsmouth services frequently wait outside Botley for | an up freight service. How can this be right?! Why don't Network Rail | reinstate the double track through the Fareham tunnels? Cost, I suppose. | This question came up a month or two back. "Cost" is the indirect answer. The plain answer is that the ground conditions there are so bad that even an attempt to avoid the Funtley tunnel (the one you can see the south portal of from Fareham station) by a diversion in a cutting had to be abandoned (local OS maps still show the route of this diversion). The cost of the engineering solution required is out of proportion to the traffic using this line. As has from time to time been shown when the Netley route is closed, the capacity of the Botley route is actually more than adequate for the current timetable. -- - Yokel - oo oo OOO OOO OO 0 OO ) ( I ) ( ) ( /\ ) ( "Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account. Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply. |
SWT improves punctuality to 90%
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:16:04 +0000, Chris Tolley wrote: I've often wondered if DD trains really do help that much. Sure they may move more people, but it also takes rather longer for the people to get on and off. Is there any definitive evidence on this matter? It was tried a long time ago (50s?) with the 4-DD sets. I think they were restricted to one route (Dartford possibly?) and the southern region decided that extending the platforms was a better idea. Not sure, but given that in a 26m UIC gauge coach you only get about 1.5 times the single-decker capacity due to space taken up by what would be underfloor equipment, staircases and wider doors, if we were stuck with 20m British-gauge coaches you'd get even less. Not to mention the extra foot you'd need in the loading gauge to get two walkways one above the other. You only get about 3.7m max internal height assuming a lower floor as low as a pocketwagon, and using the full-height of W6 (or better yet, the freight gauges with squarer corners). Given how full the SR is of random bridges with low clearances, and in particular flying junctions, I doubt a loading gauge with a higher centre will ever happen. (Improvements at the corners happen for container traffic, but the centre never goes up...) James Moody -- (¯\ | aka: Major Denis Bloodnok \ \ /¯) | ICQ: 7000473 \ \___/ / | |/ _)| ) | No more can they keep us in ( (|_| ) | Listen, damn it, we will win \ / | They see it right, they see it well |====| | But they think this saves us from our hell |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk