Could services and reslience on the SWR network be improved?

[Big Jumby 74]

Moderator note: Split from

Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates

Here is a list of the deliveries and testing info to date: 701001 701002 delivered to Eastleigh on 10 June 2020; at Clapham Yard 701003 701004 delivered to Wimbledon on 30 June 2020; stored at Marchwood 701005 delivered to Eastleigh on 20 July 2020; testing under way 701006 delivered To...

www.railforums.co.uk

With more recent signalling upgrades, details of which I am no longer aware of, is permissive working still available at Staines? I'm thinking Windsor/Weybridge splitters?

But the very reason these were written out of the timetable way back, was the potential for disruption if any one member of train crew didn't show up at the planned time (for whatever reason), this would shut the job up for a time, as Staines only has one UP and one DOWN line, with nowhere to go to get around a stranded train.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I have just re-discovered this thread for the (speculation over the) future of 701/5s.

Just taking the first line of that post, regarding the 701/5's.

If service levels resume to pre-Covid status, and a similar timetable re applies at some point ahead of here and now, they (701/5) are not/nor will be surplus, by any stretch of the imagination.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the number of cars (in relation to both 701/0 and 701/5 in total) is just sufficient to cover the pre covid suburban train service as was back in 2017 etc, with all trains running as 10-car 701, including those 3 x 8 car 450 services that (were) on the Reading route, but excluding the Guildford - Ascot route which was never intended for 701s.

This scenario, if my calculations are correct, would leave 40 cars (ie: 4 x 10 car 701 or equivalent) as maintenance spares each weekday, in other words approximately 95% of the fleet will be in service daily, and that is/has been since the ice age, the rule of thumb in EMU stock usage in the suburban area on the SW.

The use of 5 cars in single format will be required for a number of reasons, from stabling logistics at some locations, to platform lengths at others, but is (I believe) both necessary and do-able, with a few compromises.

That last point is, in my experience, how the railway has always been for the simple reason that those providing the finance need to know that EVERY other avenue has been explored before the public purse is opened - it aint rocket science!

BOLD - edited for clarity

 

[class701]

How can passenger numbers (with 701s) ever return to pre-covid levels when the number of train services running is 50% lower than it was? The passengers will return when they know there is a train due soon. There should be an additional 2tph starting at Epsom via Worcester Park, then fast to Wimbledon, Clapham Junction and Waterloo. It runs like this during disruption so why not make it regular, especially off-peak.

 

[hwl]

Just taking the first line of that post ref the 701/5's. If service levels resume to pre covid status, and a similar timetable re applies at some point ahead of here and now, they (701/5) are not/nor will be surplus, by any stretch of the imagination. As I mentioned elsewhere, the number of cars (701 in total) is just sufficient to cover the pre covid suburban train service as was back in 2017 etc, with all trains running as 10 car 701, including those 3 x 8 car 450 services that (were) on the Reading road, but excluding the Guildford-Ascot road which was never intended for 701. This scenario, if my calculations are correct, would leave 40 cars (ie: 4 x 10 car 701 or equivalent) as maintenance spares each SX day, in other words approximately 95% of the fleet will be in service every (SX) day, and that is/has been since the ice age, the rule of thumb in EMU stock usage on the SW.
The use of 5 cars in single format will be required for a number of reasons, from stabling logistics at some locations, to platform lengths at others, but is (I believe) both necessary and do-able, with a few compromises. That last point is in my experience, how the railway has always been for the simple reason that those providing the finance need to know that EVERY other avenue has been explored before the public purse is opened - t'aint rocket science!

How can passenger numbers (with 701s) ever return to pre-covid levels when the number of train services running is 50% lower than it was? The passengers will return when they know there is a train due soon. There should be an additional 2tph starting at Epsom via Worcester Park, then fast to Wimbledon, Clapham Junction and Waterloo. It runs like this during disruption so why not make it regular, especially off-peak.

The elephant in the room is SWR not having enough drivers to operate more services due to retirements, moves to other TOCs and not recruiting + training - the latter item saving DfT money in the interim.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

How can passenger numbers (with 701s) ever return to pre-covid levels when the number of train services running is 50% lower than it was?

That is exactly why the 701/5's are critical to the overall roll-out. They, and the 701/0's are sufficient in number (as in total number of cars ordered) to run the full pre-Covid timetable, with the added benefit that those services that had remained as 8 car 455 (18 x 8 car 455 to be precise) and the 3 x 8 car 450 that had also remained (on the Reading road), to all also become 10 cars.

As @hwl has commented, the driver/crew training/availability (may) have had some impact on the speed of the roll-out, and so as things gradually speed up in that regard, passengers will gain more confidence in returning, I am sure.

This was always going to be a massive project, to replace four different suburban types with one, and all the complications that this has brought to the surface.

I have always been positive in these matters, having been involved with same throughout my 40 plus years career, despite it seemingly being a thankless task when shown some of the comments/communications sent in to the various public relations teams over the years.

That's life, unfortunately, one often needs a thick skin!

 

[Goldfish62]

The elephant in the room is SWR not having enough drivers to operate more services due to retirements, moves to other TOCs and not recruiting + training - the latter item saving DfT money in the interim.

How do other TOCs manage it? Southeastern for example partially restored pre-Covid service levels in the metro area last year.

 

[hwl]

How do other TOCs manage it? Southeastern for example partially restored pre-Covid service levels in the metro area last year.

In recent times SE has always lost drivers at greater rate than other TOCs especially due to comparative poor pay deals during the short term renewals of Govia contract decade, hence always needing to recruit more is business as usual?
Getting DfT to agree to driver recruitment etc. may well have been easier for a nationalised TOC.
SWR metro potentially going DOO may have encouraged some drivers to leave for other TOCs making the situation worse.

 

[hwl]

That is exactly why the 701/5's are critical to the overall roll out. They and the 701/0's are sufficient in number (as in total number of cars ordered) to run the full pre covid timetable, with the added benefit that those services that had remained as 8 car 455 (18 x 8 car 455 to be precise) and the 3 x 8 car 450 that had also remained (on the Reading road), to all also become 10 car.
As Hwl has commented, the driver/crew training/availability (may) have had some impact on the speed of the roll out, and so as things gradually speed up in that regard, people (passengers) will gain more confidence in returning, I am sure.
This was always going to be a massive project, to replace four different suburban types with one, and all the complications that this has brought to the surface. I have always been positive in these matters, having been involved with same throughout my 40 plus years career, despite it seemingly being a thankless task when shown some of the comments/communications sent in to the various public relations teams over the years. That's life unfortunately, one often needs a thick skin!

Unfortunately the driver and guard headcount situation is worse that that as there now aren't enough to run the pre covid timetable (losses not replaced to save money - easy way of generating saving for DfT) and compared to SE you need 2 staff rather than 1 to run the train.
With DfT now in more direct control something may happen but recovering headcount will be more expensive than SE.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

With DfT now in more direct control something may happen but recovering headcount will be more expensive than SE.

A decade plus out of things, I do tend to refer to how things were in my day!

I appreciate the speed of change in these matters, so things may have changed. But I do recall how many crews were required to be trained up to ensure no cancellations of, e.g.: just one daily diagram of a new stock type, taking the 0558 Waterloo to Windsor all day diagram, so bouncing back and through between Waterloo and Windsor without rest, being the first diagram used for the new stock type (458/5 initially and then 707 in turn) introduction.

When one thinks of the related crew diagrams, am shift (2 crews), pm (another 2/3 crews), PN relief for same during the day (another 2/3 crews overall), standby cover for both shifts (another 2 crews) etc.

Granted these crew diagrams could be, and were used for other work between times, when not involved with the new stock type on any given day, but it is a demonstration of how critical crew knowledge in relation to a 'new' stock type had to be during the early months of a new stock type introduction.

BOLD - edited for clarity

 

[Goldfish62]

Personally I'd be very surprised if SWR were to ever reinstate the pre-Covid timetable. For example, the last iteration introduced in January 2020 had 4tph on the Reading line from first train until around 10:00 and a similarly extended period across the PM peak, in both directions.

As a regular peak hour traveller on the line the passenger number are simply no longer there to justify such service levels, especially with the additional capacity that 701s bring over 450s. Plus also the down Windsor services now use the paths formerly occupied by the Reading peak extras.

SWR claim that each 701 has 40% additional capacity over 2 x 455 (and logically therefore 20% over a 2 x 455 + 456 formation). That alone will enable them to claim a significant capacity boost without the need to introduce extra services on the suburban / Windsor network.

For further context, the subsidy to the railways is being cut incrementally over the next few years, while revenue doesn't appear, currently at least, to be keeping up with cost increases, let alone outstripping them.

My guess is that we might see the odd extra service added here and there in the next couple of years, but nothing like restoration of pre-Covid service levels. I would very much like to be proven wrong!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Personally I'd be very surprised if SWR were to ever reinstate the pre-Covid timetable.

SWR claim that each 701 has 40% additional capacity over 2 x 455 (and logically therefore 20% over a 2 x 455 + 456 formation). That alone will enable them to claim a significant capacity boost without the need to introduce extra services on the suburban / Windsor network.

Point one, I am in two minds about that on a stand alone basis, but point two, is the thing that will very likely drive point one in the overall sense to my mind. You are spot on in that the capacity of a 701 in seating and standing terms, is far greater than anything before, and that will be a driving factor (for the DfT). The fact that service frequency may suffer (at some locations) as a result is another matter!

This is where I put a personal note on such matters (as many others do, so I feel no guilt in this regard), as long as Mortlake retains a minimum of a 30 min frequency, then I will be content.....

 

[norbitonflyer]

This is where I put a personal note on such matters (as many others do, so I feel no guilt in this regard), as long as Mortlake retains a minimum of a 30 min frequency, then I will be content.....

Some people are too easy to please. 2tph for an inner London service (Zone 3) should not be acceptable. Especially as fares are higher than TfL services from the same Zone. Can you imagine Harlesden, Dollis Hill or Golders Green accepting 2tph?

Not to mention that the nearest road access across the Thames (and therefore bus route) has been closed for the past six years, (including eleven months when it was closed even to pedestrains) and there is no sign of it ever opening again

A development near North Sheen was given planning consent on the basis that there was a decent (4tph) train service, just before SWR pulled the rug out.

 

[brad465]

Unfortunately the driver and guard headcount situation is worse that that as there now are enough to run the pre covid timetable (losses not replaced to save money - easy way of generating saving for DfT) and compared to SE you need 2 staff rather than 1 to run the train.
With DfT now in more direct control something may happen but recovering headcount will be more expensive than SE.

Can you please clarify this, as to me it doesn't make sense?

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Some people are too easy to please.

May be I am biased being long retired, and so I do understand your points. As for Hammersmith bridge, that is an utter disgrace that such an important, and not to mention historical design of structure (as I see it) has been left as it is, and as a fan of 'The Doves' since the 1930's you may understand my understanding of the area. The current situation re the bridge needs to be addressed ASAP by that incompetent Mayor of London. Get it sorted Mr Khan end of!

 

[SWT_USER]

May be I am biased being long retired, and so I do understand your points. As for Hammersmith bridge, that is an utter disgrace that such an important, and not to mention historical design of structure (as I see it) has been left as it is, and as a fan of 'The Doves' since the 1930's you may understand my understanding of the area. The current situation re the bridge needs to be addressed ASAP by that incompetent Mayor of London. Get it sorted Mr Khan end of!

Hammersmith bridge isn't Sadiq Khan's responsibility any more than the sparse service on SWR in West London is his responsibility!

 

[hwl]

Unfortunately the driver and guard headcount situation is worse that that as there now aren't enough to run the pre covid timetable (losses not replaced to save money - easy way of generating saving for DfT) and compared to SE you need 2 staff rather than 1 to run the train.
With DfT now in more direct control something may happen but recovering headcount will be more expensive than S

Can you please clarify this, as to me it doesn't make sense?

Opps corrected in the original post.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Hammersmith bridge isn't Sadiq Khan's responsibility any more than the sparse service on SWR in West London is his responsibility!

I tendered my apologies for my inaccurate 'Mr Angry' spur of the moment comment after posting same, but since then the MODS have seen fit to split this thread, and so I repeat same here, just to be clear.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Personally I'd be very surprised if SWR were to ever reinstate the pre-Covid timetable. For example, the last iteration introduced in January 2020 had 4tph on the Reading line from first train until around 10:00 and a similarly extended period across the PM peak, in both directions.

As a regular peak hour traveller on the line the passenger number are simply no longer there to justify such service levels, especially with the additional capacity that 701s bring over 450s. Plus also the down Windsor services now use the paths formerly occupied by the Reading peak extras.

SWR claim that each 701 has 40% additional capacity over 2 x 455 (and logically therefore 20% over a 2 x 455 + 456 formation). That alone will enable them to claim a significant capacity boost without the need to introduce extra services on the suburban / Windsor network.

For further context, the subsidy to the railways is being cut incrementally over the next few years, while revenue doesn't appear, currently at least, to be keeping up with cost increases, let alone outstripping them.

My guess is that we might see the odd extra service added here and there in the next couple of years, but nothing like restoration of pre-Covid service levels. I would very much like to be proven wrong!

I think there is a problem around “the passenger numbers are no longer there to justify such service levels”. It is also a matter of making service levels attractive enough to bring in new passengers.

The long 701s provide a lot of seats in one train. But offering a 10 car train that only runs once an hour - as now happens for Bookham, for example - is nowhere near as good to attract prospective passengers as the alternative of a 5 car train running every 30 minutes. That’s not just about the flexibility of travel-time choice one gets with more frequent trains, though that is of course good. For example, people also worry about how long they will have to wait if they turn up to find their train is cancelled.

The whole formula for success back in the 1930s suburban electrification was based on short trains running at frequent intervals. That attracted more passengers.

I find it odd that the SWR decision to order the 701s as so many fixed-formation 10 car trains was left unchallenged. Why not stick to the old formula of shorter units running coupled together for much of the day? Surely that had an advantage that if a train is found at the depot to be defective, the faulty half can be removed and the service still run? Passengers prefer a crowded train that runs when expected - or slightly late - to the alternative of no train at all.

Yes, the network is crowded and accommodating a lot of shorter trains approaching London termini is a challenge. But ways round that used to exist - like joining/detaching units at outer suburban or Home Counties stations. Before computerised systems with faulty software, that never used to be much of a problem!

 

[BerkshireRails]

Some people are too easy to please. 2tph for an inner London service (Zone 3) should not be acceptable. Especially as fares are higher than TfL services from the same Zone. Can you imagine Harlesden, Dollis Hill or Golders Green accepting 2tph?

I am not happy with the 4tph pattern at Queenstown Road Battersea which is XX:07, XX:29, XX:37, XX:59, which creates gaps of 8mins, 22mins, 8mins, 22mins. If it was an every 15 minutes service then it would be fine but it isn't.

Wasn't there originally a plan for SWR to run 4tph all on Metro routes pre-COVID?