3tph on North Downs Line

[MatthewRead]

Early 80s at the latest. I was a regular user of the line from about 83/4 and never once saw, let alone used, a Tadpole. This was well before first gen DMUs disappeared from the GWML.

Oh I didn't realize they were different units I just wanted know did the North Downs line withdraw it's First gen DMU's before or after the GWML did?

 

[godfreycomplex]

Oh I didn't realize they were different units I just wanted know did the North Downs line withdraw it's First gen DMU's before or after the GWML did?

After - circa 1994

 

[bharris]

There were some strange diagrams in 1994 IIRC around the time of the introduction of the turbos. Occasionally a 2-car DMU would turn up (class 11x or whatever) when traditionally the line was using 3-cars without exception (until 2-car class 165s occasionally plied their trade, which also I never tend to see these days). Also around this time (1994) I am 95% sure I caught a tadpole or 2 (with the 3rd car locked out of use).

Actually saw a 6-car formation recently with the rear 3 out of use late one evening following a cancellation.

 

[tsr]

Actually saw a 6-car formation recently with the rear 3 out of use late one evening following a cancellation.

Likewise - I suspect we're thinking of the same incident. It did look a bit weird and there were sufficient delays to need to terminate the train at Redhill and dump all the passengers on the last Southern service to Gatwick.

Although several people have liked to say otherwise on here in the past, a 4 coach formation can also be used on the NDL, with all coaches in passenger service, in certain circumstances. There was a 166 running around as a 4-car formation at one point, though I forget the number.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Just out of interest when did the last Tadpole units run on the North Downs line was it before or after the GWML withdrew first gen DMU's?

I was intrigued by your question as I went to the Reading-Redhill line in about its first week of operation with Tadpoles - which, IIRC, was January 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_206

"They were replaced by Western Region diesel multiple units from February 1979. It was intended that four of the units should be broken up into component carriages from May 1979, with 1205 and 1206 retained for other uses, but delays in the introduction of Western Region units saw 1204 survive until August and 1203 until September. From September 1979, only one unit was required for the North Downs Line, with the other used on the Marshlink Line between Hastings and Ashford.[1]"

 

[30907]

Also around this time (1994) I am 95% sure I caught a tadpole or 2 (with the 3rd car locked out of use).

http://www.bloodandcustard.com/tadpoles001.html

Lots of Tadpole history here, but not by 1994 - though the 3T hybrids formed from 2Hs and the Tadpole driving trailers might have been around.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

With First/MTR getting the SWT's franchise, could the North Downs line timetable get recast as part of a wider recasting of the GWR/SWTs timetables?

 

[bharris]

http://www.bloodandcustard.com/tadpoles001.html

Lots of Tadpole history here, but not by 1994 - though the 3T hybrids formed from 2Hs and the Tadpole driving trailers might have been around.

I guess it was one of those then. I only remember about 2 days where it turned up, it was a rare sight.

 

[bharris]

With First/MTR getting the SWT's franchise, could the North Downs line timetable get recast as part of a wider recasting of the GWR/SWTs timetables?

On a related note they mention a new Guildford - Farnham service which would need to fit in. I don't see the point - the Alton train connects perfectly from the Guildford train at Aldershot it just doesn't show in the journey planners (the return connection is fine as it shows up in the 4 minute minimum interchange time).

 

[The Ham]

On a related note they mention a new Guildford - Farnham service which would need to fit in. I don't see the point - the Alton train connects perfectly from the Guildford train at Aldershot it just doesn't show in the journey planners (the return connection is fine as it shows up in the 4 minute minimum interchange time).

However a direct service with 24 minute journey time rather than a journey with a change that is 27 minutes (or the "official" 41 minutes going from Guildford to Farnham) is going to attract a lot more people. Given that it is likely to just be a tweek to the existing timetable (i.e. removing some of the padding) so that there is no need for additional rolling stock or staff then it should work out well for First. As it is unlikely to loses them much custom from people travelling from Frimley/Camberley to Guildford (as most would likely get to Blackwater/Farnborough North/North Camp to catch a train that takes less than half the time, and still have about 20 minutes to get to those stations).

 

[bharris]

However a direct service with 24 minute journey time rather than a journey with a change that is 27 minutes (or the "official" 41 minutes going from Guildford to Farnham) is going to attract a lot more people. Given that it is likely to just be a tweek to the existing timetable (i.e. removing some of the padding) so that there is no need for additional rolling stock or staff then it should work out well for First. As it is unlikely to loses them much custom from people travelling from Frimley/Camberley to Guildford (as most would likely get to Blackwater/Farnborough North/North Camp to catch a train that takes less than half the time, and still have about 20 minutes to get to those stations).

Is the Guildford to Farnham service effectively a "split" (Guildford-Farnham, Farnham-Ascot) of the Ascot/Guildford service or a new one entirely?

If it's a split then it would make sense to send the Alton train ahead of the arrival from Guildford (it currently slows down to allow it to cross infront at Aldershot South Junction).

If it's addtional then NR must have approved the extra movements over Ash level crossing.

 

[infobleep]

On a related note they mention a new Guildford - Farnham service which would need to fit in. I don't see the point - the Alton train connects perfectly from the Guildford train at Aldershot it just doesn't show in the journey planners (the return connection is fine as it shows up in the 4 minute minimum interchange time).

That's all well and good but if it's not in the timetable people don't know that and they will travel to North Camp and walk to Ash. I know this because I've told people about the faster connection.

A faster non walking connection is to go via Woking but you need two tickets to do it. The fastest connection is unofficial.

Not everyone thinks to look up a journey in two parts, which is the only way the fastest journey can be figured out.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the Guildford to Farnham service effectively a "split" (Guildford-Farnham, Farnham-Ascot) of the Ascot/Guildford service or a new one entirely?

If it's a split then it would make sense to send the Alton train ahead of the arrival from Guildford (it currently slows down to allow it to cross infront at Aldershot South Junction).

If it's addtional then NR must have approved the extra movements over Ash level crossing.

The DfT improvement map defines it as:

"36 new direct services on weekdays between Guildford and Farnham"

The ITT service specification spreadsheet had this to say:

LA1 2tph every 30 mins between second and penultimate train departures. Bidders are to ensure that the service is designed to ensure good connections with other services on the busiest flows. Bidders may rotate the 2tph around the clockface twice during the operating day to provide the best connections to match demand patterns and provided that the interval between two successive trains in one direction does not exceed 45 minutes. Bidders may extend services at either end of the route and split the service at AHT as noted below.

[Calling pattern at Aldershot] - Mandatory station stop at all times. Bidders may split the service at AHT and run each leg (ACT-AHT and AHT-GFD) as independent trains but only if they propose to operate through services to other destinations. E.g. ACT-WAT via AHT or GFD-FNH

So there you go, they can split the service at Aldershot if they so wish...

PS that wasn't meant to be a definitive statement - just to highlight that there was already evidence to allow for splitting the service.

 

[Deepgreen]

Likewise - I suspect we're thinking of the same incident. It did look a bit weird and there were sufficient delays to need to terminate the train at Redhill and dump all the passengers on the last Southern service to Gatwick.

Although several people have liked to say otherwise on here in the past, a 4 coach formation can also be used on the NDL, with all coaches in passenger service, in certain circumstances. There was a 166 running around as a 4-car formation at one point, though I forget the number.

I had been one of the offenders who thought that 3 cars was the maximum (not least because almost all the intermediate stations have only 3 car stopping marks). 2 car workings are not rare these days, nor are 6 car ones with 3 out of use. I have seen at least three of the latter this year, the last of which called at Betchworth with the rear three trailing over the level crossing, even though the platform there (extended in the 1960s?) actually has a 6 car stopping mark (presumably for that very reason)!

I'm intrigued at the report of a 4 car 166 - I have used Betchworth (week)daily for nearly six years and it hasn't operated in that time to my knowledge. When did this occur and what arrangements are put in place when it does/did?

 

[JonathanH]

http://www.bloodandcustard.com/tadpoles001.html

Lots of Tadpole history here, but not by 1994 - though the 3T hybrids formed from 2Hs and the Tadpole driving trailers might have been around.

I guess it was one of those then. I only remember about 2 days where it turned up, it was a rare sight.

Definitely not a 3T by 1994 - all eliminated together with the worst of the 3H / 3D fleet directly or indirectly by East Grinstead electrification in the late 1980s. Solent Link then saw off a few more DEMUs as did Redhill to Tonbridge electricification and introduction of 159 / 165 between Reading and Salisbury.

There were some reports in magazines of 3H units working the North Downs in the early 1990s, I think due to shortages of turbos but can't remember.

DEMU units definitely took over the Reigate to Tonbridge services between the DMMUs finishing and electricification going live.

 

[JonathanH]

Likewise - I suspect we're thinking of the same incident. It did look a bit weird and there were sufficient delays to need to terminate the train at Redhill and dump all the passengers on the last Southern service to Gatwick.

Although several people have liked to say otherwise on here in the past, a 4 coach formation can also be used on the NDL, with all coaches in passenger service, in certain circumstances. There was a 166 running around as a 4-car formation at one point, though I forget the number.

I had been one of the offenders who thought that 3 cars was the maximum (not least because almost all the intermediate stations have only 3 car stopping marks). 2 car workings are not rare these days, nor are 6 car ones with 3 out of use. I have seen at least three of the latter this year, the last of which called at Betchworth with the rear three trailing over the level crossing, even though the platform there (extended in the 1960s?) actually has a 6 car stopping mark (presumably for that very reason)!

I'm intrigued at the report of a 4 car 166 - I have used Betchworth (week)daily for nearly six years and it hasn't operated in that time to my knowledge. When did this occur and what arrangements are put in place when it does/did?

I'm not convinced of a 4-car 166 - whenever there has been a spare middle car it has usually ended up in the middle of a 2-car 165. It also wouldn't escape the notice of photographers.

A four car turbo formation could potentially work on the NDL but there would be plenty of spaces where it couldn't stop - eg Dorking Deepdene. I've always thought that the 6-car stop at Betchworth harks back to the days before Turbos. The previous fleets of course had shorter carriages.

Before the platform on the down main at Maidenhead was extended from 3-car length, closure of the down relief necessitated the locking out of a whole unit on a 2x2-165 working that stopped at Maidenhead. Given the short platforms on the NDL, I don't see why it would be different.

 

[Sprinter153]

The DfT improvement map defines it as:
"36 new direct services on weekdays between Guildford and Farnham"

The ITT service specification spreadsheet had this to say:
Bidders may split the service at AHT and run each leg (ACT-AHT and AHT-GFD) as independent trains but only if they propose to operate through services to other destinations. E.g. ACT-WAT via AHT or GFD-FNH.

I'd be interested to see these Aldershot to Greenford and Ascot to London Waterloo via Greenford services, that would certainly be an unorthodox invention.

Or is it too much to ask that our 'learned' friends at the DfT use the correct CRS codes?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Turbos are not fitted with any form of SDO or local door operation, it's 'all or nothing'. The Bristol sets will be fitted with SDO but as part of newly installed guards control panel. Admittedly this would also work on the NDL which are guarded as far eastward as Redhill but would be an issue Redhill-Gatwick which is DOO. (Incidentally I've always wondered about this anomaly, particularly as the guard remains on the train for ticket duties!)

I suspect that Network Rail feel they are in a position of power regarding proposed 3tph, which they do not like. It's being openly stated that anything that will potentially cause performance issues for Thameslink services heading towards the 'heroic' 24tph core frequency will be opposed, and have not exactly helped themselves by deciding to turn Redhill P1 into a south facing bay, and defining P0 as the primary platform for London-bound services, therefore all moves to/from Reigate will potentially conflict with the northbound timetable.
However they are also in control of a solution to the level crossings issue (which is not limited to controlled crossings) and can therefore block introduction of the third train by tactically avoiding agreement with DFT and GWR on how the solutions will be funded.

The Thameslink timetable has reserved 2 paths per hour to/from Gatwick for a regular interval NDL service but I will be surprised if the second path is utilised for a while.

 

[Minstral25]

I suspect that Network Rail feel they are in a position of power regarding proposed 3tph, which they do not like. It's being openly stated that anything that will potentially cause performance issues for Thameslink services heading towards the 'heroic' 24tph core frequency will be opposed, and have not exactly helped themselves by deciding to turn Redhill P1 into a south facing bay, and defining P0 as the primary platform for London-bound services, therefore all moves to/from Reigate will potentially conflict with the northbound timetable.
However they are also in control of a solution to the level crossings issue (which is not limited to controlled crossings) and can therefore block introduction of the third train by tactically avoiding agreement with DFT and GWR on how the solutions will be funded.

The Thameslink timetable has reserved 2 paths per hour to/from Gatwick for a regular interval NDL service but I will be surprised if the second path is utilised for a while.

That is a fair assessment but my understanding is the increase in road traffic at Reigate Level crossing is also an issue.

Platform 0 was always silly as main Northbound platform as station facilities are all on platforms 1/2 and nothing on the main platform that passengers will be travelling from.

However I think platform 2 may be used for Thameslink trains and platform 0 for Reigate/Tonbridge to Victoria trains which may improve the situation. Platform 2 is a bi-directional platform.

It's a real shame Network Rail decided to save costs by cutting the original plan of 4 through platforms to just 3 and then not to make platform 0 the bay.

 

[JonathanH]

Is there any evidence that the current timetable is less punctual in the half hour when the current Reading to Gatwick runs than in the other half hour?

Assuming it runs in the same slot on the other side of the hour it surely won't be any more disruptive than at the moment.

On the same basis, Network Rail should oppose 4tph Waterloo to Reading on the basis of possible contamination of North Downs trains between Reading and Wokingham and knock on delays to Thameslink trains between Redhill and Gatwick.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In my opinion GWR should replace the 166s on that route with 165s. I know 166s are supposed to be nicer due to them being for longer distances but I think they're more cramped

 

[JonathanH]

In my opinion GWR should replace the 166s on that route with 165s. I know 166s are supposed to be nicer due to them being for longer distances but I think they're more cramped

What?

Seats and seating layout is exactly the same - a 166 just has a slightly more substantial bulkheads around the door, carpet, luggage racks and air conditioning.

Anyway, suggestions were that 165s are due to be used instead of 166s once the 166s are packaged off to Bristol and 165s receive some kind of interior makeover / Chiltern style air cooling.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The 166 ceilings are lowe

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

*lower

 

[tsr]

I'm not convinced of a 4-car 166 - whenever there has been a spare middle car it has usually ended up in the middle of a 2-car 165. It also wouldn't escape the notice of photographers.

It's definitely happened - I've been on one. I can't remember the circumstances, but a couple of years ago there was a brief phase where two Turbo units (at different times) had an extra coach inserted. I can't remember the specifics and I probably wouldn't have it written down anywhere, but I could be sure it's been mentioned on the forums before.

A four car turbo formation could potentially work on the NDL but there would be plenty of spaces where it couldn't stop - eg Dorking Deepdene. I've always thought that the 6-car stop at Betchworth harks back to the days before Turbos. The previous fleets of course had shorter carriages.

Stations like Dorking Deepdene can accommodate 4 coaches of MkI stock (source: Sectional Appendix). At that particular location, the length is 87.8 between the tops of the ramps, so with some careful positioning the doors could probably all fit on the platform, unless you went for the much simpler option of locking out the doors on the rear coach at one or two stations.

Before the platform on the down main at Maidenhead was extended from 3-car length, closure of the down relief necessitated the locking out of a whole unit on a 2x2-165 working that stopped at Maidenhead. Given the short platforms on the NDL, I don't see why it would be different.

"Fire regs" (as they are known colloquially in the industry) will require a certain number of exits from each coach and each unit, thus you would not normally be permitted to run a formation with a unit where only one of its two coaches was accessible, as there would only be 4 available exits for passengers.

Turbos are not fitted with any form of SDO or local door operation, it's 'all or nothing'. The Bristol sets will be fitted with SDO but as part of newly installed guards control panel. Admittedly this would also work on the NDL which are guarded as far eastward as Redhill but would be an issue Redhill-Gatwick which is DOO. (Incidentally I've always wondered about this anomaly, particularly as the guard remains on the train for ticket duties!)

Some Redhill-Gatwick workings are DOO, not all, as far as I know. I seem to remember some of them, possibly some evening ones, are booked to run without any second member of crew at all. I'll have to ask a GWR guard next time I have a moment.

For Redhill-Gatwick, all platforms could easily accommodate any of the conceivable Turbo formations in use on the route, with the caveat that GWR services only call there in emergencies and therefore "once in a blue moon" etc. The shortest is Salfords which can hold 8 coaches of 377 stock. You can only dispatch from these stations with bodyside cameras anyway so a guard would need to be provided for that, without taking into account SDO.

I suspect that Network Rail feel they are in a position of power regarding proposed 3tph, which they do not like. It's being openly stated that anything that will potentially cause performance issues for Thameslink services heading towards the 'heroic' 24tph core frequency will be opposed, and have not exactly helped themselves by deciding to turn Redhill P1 into a south facing bay, and defining P0 as the primary platform for London-bound services, therefore all moves to/from Reigate will potentially conflict with the northbound timetable.

I do get the feeling that the TL Programme does need to settle down before this sort of improvement is tackled, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the positioning of the turnback platform is going to be any worse than if it was placed anywhere else within the current boundary of the station. If Platform 0 had been the bay platform then trains to or from Gatwick would still have had to cross the entire throat at the south of Redhill in order to get to or from the BML.

However they are also in control of a solution to the level crossings issue (which is not limited to controlled crossings) and can therefore block introduction of the third train by tactically avoiding agreement with DFT and GWR on how the solutions will be funded.

I'm not sure that anybody currently has the authority or money to sort some of those crossings out. You're quite right that it's not limited to the controlled ones - indeed, I'd be more worried about risk and misuse at some of the AHBC ones which have no permanent monitoring solution - but I guess that the more rural and lightly-used you go, the less investment there would be to build bridges and underpasses. Take Buckland AHBC as an example: you could use a bridge, such as crosses a lightly-used footpath and farm track just to the West, and drop the road down a little further (taking into account drainage from the hills to the north) but who's going to stump up the cash when the whole success of a 3tph timetable could also be affected by numerous existing flaws, such as flat junctions etc.?

The Thameslink timetable has reserved 2 paths per hour to/from Gatwick for a regular interval NDL service but I will be surprised if the second path is utilised for a while.

So we have the paths; and the crews are there, indeed the trains could probably be there too. Oh dear!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Is there any evidence that the current timetable is less punctual in the half hour when the current Reading to Gatwick runs than in the other half hour?

Assuming it runs in the same slot on the other side of the hour it surely won't be any more disruptive than at the moment.

On the same basis, Network Rail should oppose 4tph Waterloo to Reading on the basis of possible contamination of North Downs trains between Reading and Wokingham and knock on delays to Thameslink trains between Redhill and Gatwick.

Use realtimetrains and use Guildford as the station and filter it for GWR and you will see how poor they are.

It may only be 1 min, but that 1 min late going through chalk tunnel can cause a problem for Portsmouth line services as the fasts catch up with the late running stopper.

 

[Minstral25]

I do get the feeling that the TL Programme does need to settle down before this sort of improvement is tackled, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the positioning of the turnback platform is going to be any worse than if it was placed anywhere else within the current boundary of the station. If Platform 0 had been the bay platform then trains to or from Gatwick would still have had to cross the entire throat at the south of Redhill in order to get to or from the BML.

If Platform 0 was the bay, then North Downs trains could enter or leave the platform from/to Reigate lines without affecting any other route. Also when they arrive from Gatwick they only cross the Reigate lines, so the only time they block all lines is departure to Gatwick.

With Platform 1 being the bay, they block access from the South to Platform 0 when arriving from or departing to Reigate lines.

Which is why with current layout, assuming platform 1 is GWR only, I suspect only the Reigate/Tonbridge to Victoria trains will use platform 0. Northbound Thameslink's will be kept in platform 2 (perhaps even with Tonbridge's as well) and all Southbound (Thameslink or Southern) in platform 3.

Only issue is if the Reigate service is upped to half hourly or every 20 minutes with shuttles or if Tonbridge's becomes shuttles where will the shuttle go - in platform 1 behind the GWR trains? Or take up a through platform?

 

[JN114]

Some Redhill-Gatwick workings are DOO, not all, as far as I know. I seem to remember some of them, possibly some evening ones, are booked to run without any second member of crew at all. I'll have to ask a GWR guard next time I have a moment.

Apart from the odd STP working on a Saturday/Sunday, LTP all NDL services are booked to have a guard throughout. DOO GWR services may not call at Horley, Salfords and Earlswood.

 

[The Ham]

I'm wondering if GWR may look to run 3tph over part of the route (say Reading - Shalford, or maybe even on as far as Dorking) so as to ensure that they minimise the inconvenience to passengers, but also do that they minimise the cost of having spare crew and stick idle.

That would then allow them to skip stops from the current stopping service and extend it to Gatwick. Yes it wouldn't be as good as if they could run the new service to Gatwick, but it would get them a significant amount of extra passengers potentially without triggering the issue of level crossings, or at least only having to fund relatively small improvements to smaller level crossings.

 

[infobleep]

The DfT improvement map defines it as:

"36 new direct services on weekdays between Guildford and Farnham"

The ITT service specification spreadsheet had this to say:



So there you go, they can split the service at Aldershot if they so wish...

PS that wasn't meant to be a definitive statement - just to highlight that there was already evidence to allow for splitting the service.

It's interesting. If I'd read that bit I'd forgotten it. So in theory they could have services such as Haslemere to Farnham or even Haslemere to Ascot. Not saying anyone would want to do any such things commercially but it was allow.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk