Changes to the Windsor branch?

[HST43257]

So currently the Slough to Windsor branch has a Class 165/166 ’Thames Turbo’ going up and down it. It operates a 3tph service and it takes 6 minutes from 1 end to the other, with a 4 minute turnaround.

So ideally (in my view) there should be a 4tph service, for easier connections off the services. The Crossrail (TfL Rail) and GWR semifast services are both half hourly - connections off them would be easier and more popular if they were more evenly accessible from all tph (ignoring IC stuff).

But how is a 4tph service achieved? I can think of a few things that could be implemented (not all):
- Lowering the turnaround time to 1.5 mins so 1 turn is 13.5 mins, making a 15 min service.
- An increase of line speed that means the journey time is 5 mins, with a 2.5 min turnaround. A more reliable version of the first point.
- Parry People Mover -> make the line more welcoming, with 1 staff member on board (driverless). Buzzing up and down saving energy where possible. Much less turnaround time needed, and speed improvements may not be possible/necesarry.
- D-Train -> Capacity not lost, battery possible, higher speeds, quick turnarounds hopefully and ideally driverless - train captain DLR style if driverless isn’t possible.


Anyone else’s thoughts on how 4tph could be achieved would be much appreciated.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

So currently the Slough to Windsor branch has a Class 165/166 ’Thames Turbo’ going up and down it. It operates a 3tph service and it takes 6 minutes from 1 end to the other, with a 4 minute turnaround.

So ideally (in my view) there should be a 4tph service, for easier connections off the services. The Crossrail (TfL Rail) and GWR semifast services are both half hourly - connections off them would be easier and more popular if they were more evenly accessible from all tph (ignoring IC stuff).

But how is a 4tph service achieved? I can think of a few things that could be implemented (not all):
- Lowering the turnaround time to 1.5 mins so 1 turn is 13.5 mins, making a 15 min service.
- An increase of line speed that means the journey time is 5 mins, with a 2.5 min turnaround. A more reliable version of the first point.
- Parry People Mover -> make the line more welcoming, with 1 staff member on board (driverless). Buzzing up and down saving energy where possible. Much less turnaround time needed, and speed improvements may not be possible/necesarry.
- D-Train -> Capacity not lost, battery possible, higher speeds, quick turnarounds hopefully and ideally driverless - train captain DLR style if driverless isn’t possible.


Anyone else’s thoughts on how 4tph could be achieved would be much appreciated.

1.5 minute turnarounds would not be possible with current stock, as it would guarantee late departures all the time practically. There is a reason why the Timetable Planning Rules have mandatory minimum turnaroud times.

 

[Bald Rick]

2tph much more likely...

 

[HST43257]

1.5 minute turnarounds would not be possible with current stock, as it would guarantee late departures all the time practically. There is a reason why the Timetable Planning Rules have mandatory minimum turnaroud times.

Which is why I suggest line speed improvements. An average speed of 26.3mph is quite low. Rise this to only 31.5mph and you have a 5 min journey time and 2.5 min turnarounds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2tph much more likely...

Given that the unit and crew are there anyway so the cost is just the diesel and a few pence of track access costs, what's the point in reducing it? Or would it be so it connects with the fast 80x to/from London?

I've long thought it'd be well suited to a 3-car D78, though you could equally argue that it's a Windermere-style electrification case (cheap to wire) and should just be an Electrostar.

 

[JonathanH]

2tph much more likely...

It is currently running 2tph but on a 20 / 40 minute frequency, presumably since that connects better to the slow services on one journey and the faster services the other.

 

[takno]

So currently the Slough to Windsor branch has a Class 165/166 ’Thames Turbo’ going up and down it. It operates a 3tph service and it takes 6 minutes from 1 end to the other, with a 4 minute turnaround.

So ideally (in my view) there should be a 4tph service, for easier connections off the services. The Crossrail (TfL Rail) and GWR semifast services are both half hourly - connections off them would be easier and more popular if they were more evenly accessible from all tph (ignoring IC stuff).

But how is a 4tph service achieved? I can think of a few things that could be implemented (not all):
- Lowering the turnaround time to 1.5 mins so 1 turn is 13.5 mins, making a 15 min service.
- An increase of line speed that means the journey time is 5 mins, with a 2.5 min turnaround. A more reliable version of the first point.
- Parry People Mover -> make the line more welcoming, with 1 staff member on board (driverless). Buzzing up and down saving energy where possible. Much less turnaround time needed, and speed improvements may not be possible/necesarry.
- D-Train -> Capacity not lost, battery possible, higher speeds, quick turnarounds hopefully and ideally driverless - train captain DLR style if driverless isn’t possible.


Anyone else’s thoughts on how 4tph could be achieved would be much appreciated.

Parry People Movers in the only place they are run are basically a small, noisy, slow and uncomfortable double-crewed bus. You wouldn't be able to increase the frequency since if anything the journey would be slower. Why would making the journey worse and slower be an improvement?

 

[The Planner]

Which is why I suggest line speed improvements. An average speed of 26.3mph is quite low. Rise this to only 31.5mph and you have a 5 min journey time and 2.5 min turnarounds.

2.5 minute turnarounds are hardly robust either. Considering you dont start on a half minute or end on a half minute you would need a minimum of 3 and you wouldn't do that consistently either four times an hour all day. Id bet the previous 4 minutes falls over on occasion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Parry People Movers in the only place they are run are basically a small, noisy, slow and uncomfortable double-crewed bus. You wouldn't be able to increase the frequency since if anything the journey would be slower. Why would making the journey worse and slower be an improvement?

Wouldn't have anywhere near enough capacity for the summer tourist season. A 3-car Turbo often goes out full and standing from Slough. It's not a typical one man, dog and bicycle country branch line.

 

[Ianno87]

Given that the unit and crew are there anyway so the cost is just the diesel and a few pence of track access costs, what's the point in reducing it? Or would it be so it connects with the fast 80x to/from London?

I've long thought it'd be well suited to a 3-car D78, though you could equally argue that it's a Windermere-style electrification case (cheap to wire) and should just be an Electrostar.

Presumably 2tph with the "layover" concentrated at one end drives sn efficiency if that can be combined with a break, or enables the branch crew to book off earlier / sign on later when changing over.

 

[cactustwirly]

So currently the Slough to Windsor branch has a Class 165/166 ’Thames Turbo’ going up and down it. It operates a 3tph service and it takes 6 minutes from 1 end to the other, with a 4 minute turnaround.

So ideally (in my view) there should be a 4tph service, for easier connections off the services. The Crossrail (TfL Rail) and GWR semifast services are both half hourly - connections off them would be easier and more popular if they were more evenly accessible from all tph (ignoring IC stuff).

But how is a 4tph service achieved? I can think of a few things that could be implemented (not all):
- Lowering the turnaround time to 1.5 mins so 1 turn is 13.5 mins, making a 15 min service.
- An increase of line speed that means the journey time is 5 mins, with a 2.5 min turnaround. A more reliable version of the first point.
- Parry People Mover -> make the line more welcoming, with 1 staff member on board (driverless). Buzzing up and down saving energy where possible. Much less turnaround time needed, and speed improvements may not be possible/necesarry.
- D-Train -> Capacity not lost, battery possible, higher speeds, quick turnarounds hopefully and ideally driverless - train captain DLR style if driverless isn’t possible.


Anyone else’s thoughts on how 4tph could be achieved would be much appreciated.

Shorter turnarounds would not be viable, it's a very busy line with tourists, it can take up to a minute and a half just to unload the passengers. A ppm or D train would be a significant downgrade in capacity, and you'd need somewhere to maintain the PPM

I don't think 4tph is possible, it works well as it is.
Fwiw TfL rail and GWR services are technically 4tph, but 2tph in practice. Especially in the westbound direction where the GWR runs only a few minutes behind the TfL.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shorter turnarounds would not be viable, it's a very busy line with tourists, it can take up to a minute and a half just to unload the passengers. A ppm or D train would be a significant downgrade in capacity

In seats perhaps, but not capacity. The TfL standee layout would get more people on.

 

[cactustwirly]

In seats perhaps, but not capacity. The TfL standee layout would get more people on.

How? The 165s are longer and wider.
Plus you've got the added expense of a microfleet at Reading, compared to 9 or so 165s

 

[Bletchleyite]

How? The 165s are longer and wider.

The 165s are laid out with 3+2 seating and poor standing space.

 

[cactustwirly]

The 165s are laid out with 3+2 seating and poor standing space.

A class 165 (2 car) has 170 seats, the equivalent 230 has a capacity of 188 (seating and standing)

 

[Bletchleyite]

A class 165 (2 car) has 170 seats, the equivalent 230 has a capacity of 188 (seating and standing)

To be fair, the equivalent to a 2-car 165 (46m) is probably a 3-car D78 (52m), a 2-car one is rather shorter. Similarly a 3-car 165 (69m) vs a 4-car D78 (72m).

 

[cactustwirly]

To be fair, the equivalent to a 2-car 165 (46m) is probably a 3-car D78 (52m), a 2-car one is rather shorter. Similarly a 3-car 165 (69m) vs a 4-car D78 (72m).

That doesn't solve the gross inefficiency of having a microfleet of 2 units.

 

[JonathanH]

That doesn't solve the gross inefficiency of having a microfleet of 2 units.

You could have a microfleet of four units if the same rolling stock did Greenford and Marlow.

Once the 769s are about, Reading has 10 2-car Turbos for nine diagrams (Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Bedwyn (peaks) plus five Oxfordshire locals (two peak)). A microfleet for the three East of Reading diagrams seems unlikely (ie 'Clarence Yard' has confirmed it isn't happening) but for the purpose of this thread, the requirements for Greenford and Marlow aren't too different than those for Windsor.

 

[cactustwirly]

You could have a microfleet of four units if the same rolling stock did Greenford and Marlow.

What about Didcot to Oxford and Banbury/ Cotswold halts services?

 

[JonathanH]

What about Didcot to Oxford and Banbury/ Cotswold halts services?

(...and Bedwyn peaks). You could just make them part of the 'West' allocation and run them from Bristol / Westbury / Worcester.

Mind you, if Covid sees off 3tph on the North Downs and the additional peak working on the Basingstoke line, the spare 769s and possibly some slack in the 80x fleets might be enough to remove the Turbos from everything except Marlow, Greenford and the Cotswold halts.

 

[cactustwirly]

(...and Bedwyn peaks). You could just make them part of the 'West' allocation and run them from Bristol / Westbury / Worcester.

Or just keep 9 units at Reading, much easier...
This thread looks like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[MarkyT]

An idea for running the GWR Slough - Windsor branch line at 15-minute service interval using two battery-powered trains as follows:

Automation - highly suitable due to full segregation of the line with no level crossings.
A double-sided platform layout at Windsor, with segregated boarding and alighting so reversing is achieved as quickly as possible. Doors sequenced to allow people off one side before boarding from the other.
Second platform track added at Slough and use two trains, allowing one to be waiting and charging its batteries, as necessary, at all times, departing as soon as the other arrives.
A member of staff can be posted at each of the stations to supervise ticket gates, observe boarding and press the go button for the automation system to drive to the other end of the line.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be perfect for UTO...

 

[MarkyT]

It would be perfect for UTO...

And popular and high-profile enough to be a good convenient demonstrator of the tech as applied to a short self-contained branch.

 

[BrianW]

An idea for running the GWR Slough - Windsor branch line at 15-minute service interval using two battery-powered trains as follows:

Automation - highly suitable due to full segregation of the line with no level crossings.
A double-sided platform layout at Windsor, with segregated boarding and alighting so reversing is achieved as quickly as possible. Doors sequenced to allow people off one side before boarding from the other.
Second platform track added at Slough and use two trains, allowing one to be waiting and charging its batteries, as necessary, at all times, departing as soon as the other arrives.
A member of staff can be posted at each of the stations to supervise ticket gates, observe boarding and press the go button for the automation system to drive to the other end of the line.

That looks exciting. I guess there are no through Paddingtons now or expected, and no scope for the Masters of Eton College to object. Perhaps they and/or the next wearer of the crown may promote as a green opportunity- solar/ wind/ whatever ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

And popular and high-profile enough to be a good convenient demonstrator of the tech as applied to a short self-contained branch.

If you wanted two, that and the Stourbridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2021 ==

That looks exciting. I guess there are no through Paddingtons now or expected, and no scope for the Masters of Eton College to object. Perhaps they and/or the next wearer of the crown may promote as a green opportunity- solar/ wind/ whatever ...

Through Paddingtons would require running on the fasts, so I can't see that ever happening. Only way you could do it would be a flyover west of Slough and an extra track, which would be horribly expensive, and you probably get a faster journey by taking the non-stop 80x and changing.

Only other way would I guess be a fast Slough and Windsor only once HEx disappears (as I'm confident it will) - but even that is awkward and probably a waste of paths.

 

[TheWalrus]

You could have a microfleet of four units if the same rolling stock did Greenford and Marlow.

Once the 769s are about, Reading has 10 2-car Turbos for nine diagrams (Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Bedwyn (peaks) plus five Oxfordshire locals (two peak)). A microfleet for the three East of Reading diagrams seems unlikely (ie 'Clarence Yard' has confirmed it isn't happening) but for the purpose of this thread, the requirements for Greenford and Marlow aren't too different than those for Windsor.

If there is a reduction in commuting after Covid-19 then you could easily scrap the Bedwyn peak shuttles. The Cotswolds halts could be served by an IET service, which I believe did happen a year or two ago in the evenings.

 

[MarkyT]

Through Paddingtons would require running on the fasts, so I can't see that ever happening. Only way you could do it would be a flyover west of Slough and an extra track, which would be horribly expensive, and you probably get a faster journey by taking the non-stop 80x and changing.

Proximity of station, junction, and the huge road overbridge at the west end makes a flyover practically impossible. A dive-under at the west would need low level platforms somehow. Through platforms in front of the town side entrance and then arranging a grade separated junction to the east of the station might just be plausible without wrecking the heritage listed buildings but would mess up the established entrance and take a lot of land. The isolated shuttle works and is popular. Windsor is well served by it and the SWR service at the other station. I see no justification or business case to change it, apart from frequency improvements if possible and some form of cost effective electrification.

 

[cle]

I always thought that this would make a good Crossrail stub - especially in the early days when 2tph were planned to turn at Slough. A single track dive-under onto the branch and away. 2tph plenty. Probably a lot of suppressed local demand (both rail options are substandard vs being on a mainline) - plus tourism and counter-peak demand, and a good inner turning point for Crossrail.

But that never happened, and so I think today's solution is probably the best, and given both Crossrail and fasts, and westbound services, may as well not connect with anything in particular. The semi-fast Crossrails may become the best used Slough trains, vs the Oxford fasts which require a change at Paddington.

 

[MarkyT]

I always thought that this would make a good Crossrail stub - especially in the early days when 2tph were planned to turn at Slough. A single track dive-under onto the branch and away. 2tph plenty. Probably a lot of suppressed local demand (both rail options are substandard vs being on a mainline) - plus tourism and counter-peak demand, and a good inner turning point for Crossrail.

But that never happened, and so I think today's solution is probably the best, and given both Crossrail and fasts, and westbound services, may as well not connect with anything in particular. The semi-fast Crossrails may become the best used Slough trains, vs the Oxford fasts which require a change at Paddington.

If the junction had been just a quarter mile further west of the station, a grade separation might have been more practical and you're right then the branch would have made a great turnback for a proportion of the Elizabeth Line service.