Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
In 2006, or specifically, in between the last run of slam doors and the last run of SWT 442s, was every single London to Portsmouth Harbour service booked for 444?
In 2006, or specifically, in between the last run of slam doors and the last run of SWT 442s, was every single London to Portsmouth Harbour service booked for 444?
I have the 444 diagrams from 2006 (exact date unknown, they're just labelled "2006"), obtained from the former Modern EMUs groups.io group before it disappeared.
It does look like the vast majority of Portsmouth Directs - not just the fasts but also the stoppers - were 444-operated Mon-Fri. The fasts and stoppers interworked at Waterloo.
One exception appears to be 2P41, the 14:15 Waterloo-Haslemere and 15:39 return, which is not present on the 444 diagram list implying it must have been 450.
A further exception appears to be 1P35, the 12:30 Waterloo-Portsmouth fast, more surprisingly.
Furthermore it appears that the 17:15 and 18:18 peak services out of Waterloo were also 450.
The pattern on the SWML semi-fasts at xx09 and xx39 was similar: vast majority 444, but the occasional 450 round the peaks.
More unusual 444 workings included the 0644, 0744 and 0814 Alton-Waterloo; 1553 and 1755 Waterloo-Alton; 0706, 0724 and 0752 Basingstoke-Waterloo; and 1823 Waterloo-Basingstoke. With the Alton line it seemed there was a desire to offer 444s on some of the premium peak services, echoing the way they offered CIGs and CORs on similar premium peak services in previous eras.
Caveat: I only looked at 0900-1900 departures from Waterloo.
This changed following the transfer of 444s to the SWML and many more Portsmouth Direct services became 450s, even fasts.
If you are interested in the diagrams, I can send you them. I can't see this would be a problem.
If they are those you kindly supplied me with many moons ago, my educated guess is December 2006 base plan. If either of you wants to know more, feel free to PM me, provided I can reply likewise in PM mode out of curtesy.
If they are those you kindly supplied me with many moons ago, my educated guess is December 2006 base plan. If either of you wants to know more, feel free to PM me, provided I can reply likewise in PM mode out of curtesy.
I think these are different, I believe they were essentially the Dec 2004 pattern due to the sheer number of 444s on the Portsmouth Direct and the xx09/39 semi-fasts. The ones I sent you were a bit later, I think.
I think these are different, I believe they were essentially the Dec 2004 pattern due to the sheer number of 444s on the Portsmouth Direct and the xx09/39 semi-fasts.
From my albeit vague memory, things between Dec 2004 and prior to the 2007 refranchise bid did not change that much. There were a certain number of minor changes such as the 0710 Haslemere to Waterloo was reformed from 10 car 444 to 12 car 450, as people were being left behind at both Guildford and Worplesdon.
The 2007 changes were the first large scale changes made to the 2004 plan as a result of the DfT's requirements to resolve overcrowding on all routes.
I will ask my old mucca's, one of whom was the lead planner of the 2004 plan and its inception, and a-another who was actively involved with negotiations with the DfT at that time in relation to such matters.
From my albeit vague memory, things between Dec 2004 and prior to the 2007 refranchise bid did not change that much. There were a certain number of minor changes such as the 0710 Haslemere to Waterloo was reformed from 10 car 444 to 12 car 450, as people were being left behind at both Guildford and Worplesdon.
The 2007 changes were the first large scale changes made to the 2004 plan as a result of the DfT's requirements to resolve overcrowding on all routes.
I will ask my old mucca's, one of whom was the lead planner of the 2004 plan and its inception, and a-another who was actively involved with negotiations with the DfT at that time in relation to such matters.
Thanks. I do also have a CWN dated 5 Feb 2007 which is post-change, as evidenced by many more 450s on the Direct and on the main-line semi-fasts. However this was still prior to the introduction of 2tph Weymouth and the xx39 operating through to Poole. (Think that was May or Dec 2007?)
On a slight tangent, I remember looking at the variety of London-bound trains from Portsmouth and Southsea sometime around 2015, and was amazed how frequent they were.
In one hour, you'd get:
A train to Waterloo via Guildford
A train to Waterloo via Basingstoke
A stopping train via Guildford
A train to Victoria
Can anyone tell me the frequency (ie. put a number after each service to show trains per hour), and compare that with today's frequencies please ?
On a slight tangent, I remember looking at the variety of London-bound trains from Portsmouth and Southsea sometime around 2015, and was amazed how frequent they were.
In one hour, you'd get:
A train to Waterloo via Guildford
A train to Waterloo via Basingstoke
A stopping train via Guildford
A train to Victoria
Can anyone tell me the frequency (ie. put a number after each service to show trains per hour), and compare that with today's frequencies please ?
Waterloo via Guildford fast was 2tph now 1tph (but 2tph on Saturdays)
Waterloo via Guildford slow was 1tph still 1tph
Waterloo via Basingstoke was 1tph still 1tph
Victoria via Horsham was 1tph now 2tph (but with the loss of the Southampton-Victoria)
Waterloo via Guildford fast was 2tph now 1tph (but 2tph on Saturdays)
Waterloo via Guildford slow was 1tph still 1tph
Waterloo via Basingstoke was 1tph still 1tph
Victoria via Horsham was 1tph now 2tph (but with the loss of the Southampton-Victoria)
Interesting, didn't realise there were two fasts on Saturdays.
The big loser of the post-Covid regime appears to be Farncombe: two services in 15 mins (one of the fasts stop) then nothing. Traditionally it's always had a decent-interval (around 30 min) 2tph service, sometimes with a change at Guildford required due to a looped stopper - except for 1977 and 1993 when it was 1tph.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Interesting this differs from the "2006" dated workings I have, showing that the 2004-06 period, before the transfer of 444s to the mainline, didn't have constant diagrams and tweaks were made.
As stated above, there appeared to be 450s on the 1230 (1P35), 1515 (2P41) and 1715 (2P53?) services that year.
On the via-Eastleigh the 0809 (1T17), 1609 (1T49) appeared to be 450. The 1809 (1T57) was 444.
1P65 and 1P69 (2000 and 2100) appeared to be 450.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Interestingly, this had altered by 5 Feb 2007 with quite a few more 450 services (e.g. 1P21 0900 and 1P23 0930, 1309-1509 inclusive via Eastleigh). I'm guessing there were still some 442s on the mainline in Dec 2006 so some 444s could be retained on the Direct and via-Eastleigh.
The Dec 2006 above is also different to the "2006" diagrams I have, suggesting what I have is perhaps May 2006?
All the 442s were still running in December 2006, hence so many 444's on the PDL as mentioned above. The 442's were removed from the plan en-mass mid January 2007, in order that the cascade of all other stock could be in place at the Feb 2007 re-franchise date, the date that the Weymouth service was also increased to 2ph, resulting in a mass shift of 444 work.
The network wide benefit in increased seats, which is what the DfT required of this change, was an increase of North of 14,000 seats per SX day, with 3,500 plus of those being in the peak hours alone. Nine off peak trains saw a reduction in seats, mostly 4 car 450 replacing a 5 car 444.
All the 442s were still running in December 2006, hence so many 444's on the PDL as mentioned above. The 442's were removed from the plan en-mass mid January 2007, in order that the cascade of all other stock could be in place at the Feb 2007 re-franchise date, the date that the Weymouth service was also increased to 2ph, resulting in a mass shift of 444 work.
The network wide benefit in increased seats, which is what the DfT required of this change, was an increase of North of 14,000 seats per SX day, with 3,500 plus of those being in the peak hours alone. Nine off peak trains saw a reduction in seats, mostly 4 car 450 replacing a 5 car 444.
Was 2tph Weymouth definitely from Feb 07? The CWN I have for 5 Feb 07 shows the xx05 off Waterloo as running to Poole, and the xx39 terminating at Southampton Central, rather than extending to Poole.
I do have a memory of using an xx39 to reach Beaulieu Road on a Saturday in Dec 07 (perhaps the 1139 ex-Waterloo), which suggests the new pattern was in place by then. If I remember right this was when 1tp2h at Beaulieu Road on Saturdays was restored, following a period when only Sunday had a regular service (as it wasn't desirable to stop the xx05, as a fast, at BEU and there was no local shuttle service up-line from Brockenhurst).
You are correct ref the Feb 2007 CWN. It's likely the Weymouth uplift may have followed on later in 2007, possibly May? The changes that took place in February amounted to a wholesale recast of the stock diagrams, particularly 444/450, which will have taken some getting use to for all involved, so it may have been a pro active decision to push the Weymouth timetable update back to May?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As an afterthought, the issue of 12 car 458 formations was investigated back in 2006/7 as part of the above changes, and a number of scenarios were looked at with regard such formations, all of which were dismissed due to their physical length, and not only at terminal stations, but at other locations on the SWML as well.
Ah ok, thanks. I think the date I used the xx39 to Beaulieu Road was Sat 15 Dec so it looks like I used the 1tp2h Saturday service to that station at the first opportunity! Would have been the 1139 I think as I seem to remember it was the odd-hours services that called - it would have arrived at Beaulieu Road around 1345. I remember it being a single 444: the pattern was all 444s on Sat but a mix Mon-Fri.
Thinking back the few years before that, while I did use Beaulieu Road quite a bit, most occasions I did were on a Sunday - probably because there was no particularly usable Saturday service. Might have been one Poole fast every four hours calling? Can't remember now.
I do remember some time before that, in late slam-door days, there was an xx45 Waterloo-Poole operated by CIGs and CEPs which was very similar indeed to the later xx39, and similarly provided a 1tp2h weekday service. But this disappeared for a few years when only the Waterloo-Southampton and Brockenhurst-Poole parts of the journey kept operating, leaving Beaulieu Road a difficult place to reach 6 days a week for a good few years! I realise it's in the middle of nowhere, but it's a great station for a walk for much of the year.
Interesting this differs from the "2006" dated workings I have, showing that the 2004-06 period, before the transfer of 444s to the mainline, didn't have constant diagrams and tweaks were made.
As mentioned earlier, the 0710 Haslemere to Waterloo was one of the earliest 'tweaks', but there were others as a result of the 2004 TT bedding in, and passenger flows v train formations began to show there were a number of instances where seats to bums could be better matched, and adjustments were made to that end. Has to be remembered that for every one train reformed due to overcrowding, that has consequences for subsequent trains associated with that diagram, even if those later trains did not require reforming in their own context. Doing nothing was not an option.
As mentioned earlier, the 0710 Haslemere to Waterloo was one of the earliest 'tweaks', but there were others as a result of the 2004 TT bedding in, and passenger flows v train formations began to show there were a number of instances where seats to bums could be better matched, and adjustments were made to that end. Has to be remembered that for every one train reformed due to overcrowding, that has consequences for subsequent trains associated with that diagram, even if those later trains did not require reforming in their own context. Doing nothing was not an option.
One contrast between the 2004-07 era and the 2007-onwards era interestingly was the less predictable diagramming at Waterloo. In the initial Desiro period from 2004-07, it seems that predictable interworking patterns at Waterloo was the norm, while post-2007 this was very much less the case. I think we've discussed this before, with reasons ranging from matching stock to demand, to unit mileage considerations.
One contrast between the 2004-07 era and the 2007-onwards era interestingly was the less predictable diagramming at Waterloo. In the initial Desiro period from 2004-07, it seems that predictable interworking patterns at Waterloo was the norm, while post-2007 this was very much less the case. I think we've discussed this before, with reasons ranging from matching stock to demand, to unit mileage considerations.
That's quite correct in all you say. But also within the higher management of the industry there were often differing priorities, which had to be reviewed now and again, be it a uniform platform scenario at Waterloo for specific destinations, full crew working (or not), the list goes on.
Without wishing to stray too far OT, Waterloo itself, the peaks in particular, and the timetable, dictated (and still does I would think) many of the issues spoken of in this thread. Combine that with financial restrictions, be that number of driver duties, unit mileage (as was), and there is only so much that can be achieved.
I'd say that's a constraint too far if it leads to complications in diagramming and working patterns... as a passenger who has used Waterloo moderately frequently (though mostly from the 90s to the 10s) I just accepted that different trains to my destination might have to leave from different platforms.
It was something that some (in the industry) were focused upon, and to be clear, I was not adverse to the concept of same, but when everything else is taken in to account, such 'nice to haves' are not always possible. That's why the station (all stations) have departure screens when all said and done!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
