GWR 2019 Timetable Change

[Wilts Wanderer]

Looks GWR are deferred the changes back to May 2019 by reading other trends rencently.

GWR hasn’t deferred anything, DfT and Network Rail have imposed this decision. Given that it will financially impact on pretty much every franchise who had planned any kind of enhancement, I doubt GWR (or any of the others) are too impressed, especially as it is ultimately to hide NR’s shortcomings in both major project management and timetable planning capability.

 

[HowardGWR]

GWR hasn’t deferred anything, DfT and Network Rail have imposed this decision. Given that it will financially impact on pretty much every franchise who had planned any kind of enhancement, I doubt GWR (or any of the others) are too impressed, especially as it is ultimately to hide NR’s shortcomings in both major project management and timetable planning capability.

If that is the case then is not DfT in breach of the franchise agreement, enabling compensation to GWR? NR would surely be held to be the DfT's agent in the matter?

Edit: The Bristol Post is carrying this article (link below)
"While fewer than two-thirds of trains on GWR’s franchise actually turned up on time, nine in ten were less than ten minutes late.

But there was a sharp rise in the most serious issues for passengers - trains that were either ‘significantly late’ - between half an hour to two hours late - or cancelled altogether.

That was running at little over two per cent back in 2010, but is now approaching five per cent, or around one in every 22 trains."

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/million-half-minutes-delays-year-1774689

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Quite probably, there are a hell of a lot of processes being ignored or broken at the moment.

 

[DelW]

GWR hasn’t deferred anything, DfT and Network Rail have imposed this decision. Given that it will financially impact on pretty much every franchise who had planned any kind of enhancement, I doubt GWR (or any of the others) are too impressed, especially as it is ultimately to hide NR’s shortcomings in both major project management and timetable planning capability.

I suspect this must be hitting ticket sales as well. I have (non-enthusiast) friends who are of the generation that has never owned a car, and rely on GWR to travel between London and families in south Wales, mainly at weekends. In the face of endless diversions, delays, cancellations, late release of engineering work weekend timetables, and late release or non-availability of advance tickets, they have either reduced their travelling or tried to make other arrangements to avoid using the railway. For them, it's GWR, as the name on the side of the trains, that gets the blame, they're not really interested if I try to explain the role of DfT or NR in this year's timetable debacles. The news that the promised timetable improvements (or even a return to a reliable timetable available three months ahead?) has been put back well into next year hasn't improved their view of things either.

 

[HowardGWR]

Quite probably, there are a hell of a lot of processes being ignored or broken at the moment.

See my edit, by the way, above.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If that is the case then is not DfT in breach of the franchise agreement, enabling compensation to GWR? NR would surely be held to be the DfT's agent in the matter?

The DfT are not "in breach" of the FA but it is classed as a "Franchise Change" so the TOC is held neutral for that imposed "Change Event".

The collective cost to the DfT of imposing such a Change on several TOCs is not a small sum. It is understood that this was the cause of a slight delay in the DfT sending the decision letters out to TOCs as the Treasury had to get involved.

 

[Charlie M.]

Anyone got any good draft timetable ideas?

 

[jayah]

The DfT are not "in breach" of the FA but it is classed as a "Franchise Change" so the TOC is held neutral for that imposed "Change Event".

The collective cost to the DfT of imposing such a Change on several TOCs is not a small sum. It is understood that this was the cause of a slight delay in the DfT sending the decision letters out to TOCs as the Treasury had to get involved.

SLC 3b if that is what is or was suppose to happen contains some eye watering service enhancements on Sundays e.g.

2.3 Route 1.1(a) (London Paddington and Cheltenham) - Sundays
(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services, services shall be provided from London Paddington at hourly intervals.

2.3 Route 1.1(a) (London Paddington and Swansea) Sundays
(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services, services shall be provided from London Paddington. Services other than the Late Service need not call at Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea so long as between 0915 and 2100 services shall depart London Paddington at hourly intervals calling at Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea and that between 0915 and 1900 services shall depart London Paddington at half hourly intervals calling at Cardiff Central.

It sounds like a fantastic get out of jail free card (perhaps even a bailout?) to escape from those sort of commitments even for another 5-6 months given the fact that the current situation fails to deliver even half of this?

You could argue that the lack of wires to Cardiff and risk around delivering Filton 4 track creates instability in the timetable where apparently minor changes and movement might lead to the sort of issues cited by Thameslink for the fact their final rosters saw drivers coming up 50 short with days to launch, but as far as Sunday is concerned it looks completely implausible if this sort of service enhancement hadn't already been negotiated away, it was ever going to be delivered.

Given it is all Network Rail's fault, I can't help wondering why the Labour Party are so keen on nationalisation? The Thameslink precedent is now that the timetable planning needs to begin months in advance, but start only once the infrastructure delivery is 'in the bag'. This will cause a lot of delay to many committed schemes even more awkward questions in the House, for which the Secretary of State is answerable.

 

[jimm]

Anyone got any good draft timetable ideas?

What are you on about? The timetable will be the one that was due to be implemented at the start of next year, just starting later than planned as a result of Network Rail's timetable planning problems and inability to meet its revised electrification target for Cardiff - they're not starting writing a timetable again from scratch.

 

[Charlie M.]

What are you on about? The timetable will be the one that was due to be implemented at the start of next year, just starting later than planned as a result of Network Rail's timetable planning problems and inability to meet its revised electrification target for Cardiff - they're not starting writing a timetable again from scratch.

You do like to moan at every single member on this website don’t you. I never once said that they will change he plans for May, I just asked that what people think the timetable will include (e.g fasts avoiding stations, the Bedwyn services, calls, speed, frequency etc.)

I said a couple of words and you have to make a big deal out of it. I’m not the only one who finds you irritating.

 

[700007]

Does anyone else think that the Didcot stopper post Elizabeth line should be joint to an extended Newbury stopper? I. e a Didcot Parkway & Newbury service which calls at most stations to Reading (as I understand is planned), divides at Reading and continues all stations to their respective destinations?

Or am I just sniffing the crayons too much again

 

[jimm]

You do like to moan at every single member on this website don’t you. I never once said that they will change he plans for May, I just asked that what people think the timetable will include (e.g fasts avoiding stations, the Bedwyn services, calls, speed, frequency etc.)

I said a couple of words and you have to make a big deal out of it. I’m not the only one who finds you irritating.

This was your question:

Anyone got any good draft timetable ideas?

That question does not give any indication of any level of detail you might be thinking of, does it?

And we are way beyond the stage of draft ideas going into the GWR 2019 timetable process - hence my response, whether it irritates you or not.

GWR (and other TOCs with an interest) and Network Rail were deep into negotiations about detailed proposed timetables well before the whole process got knocked back. And all the delay does is provides extra time for the timetable negotiating process to be completed, not take it back to the beginning.

I have lost count of the number of times I have posted this link to the GWR presentation, which was given many times in slightly varied forms, way back when in 2015, giving lots of information about the proposed service levels, frequency and all the rest in what was then meant to be the December 2018 timetable - including giving it in this thread on the previous page less than a month ago.

http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Travelwatch-Presentation-October-2015.pdf

I have also attached an earlier extended version of the presentation slides - I can't find it online - which gives more info on services for the Thames Valley region, subject to the usual provisos about delays to electrification, changes of emu type since 2015, Bedwyn through services from Paddington being retained using IETs, etc.

The things mentioned in those presentations are the kind of things that the timetable will include... as has been pointed out on this forum many times for several years now.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It hasn’t changed and negotiations with NR and others, now for May 2019, are ongoing.

GWR have asked to make a few minor passenger alterations for December 2018 and are currently awaiting the go/no go from DfT and NR HQ. There has to be an ECS change from May 2018 base anyway because of the HST/IET cascade and the closure of Landore and Old Oak.

 

[JonathanH]

Does anyone else think that the Didcot stopper post Elizabeth line should be joint to an extended Newbury stopper? I. e a Didcot Parkway & Newbury service which calls at most stations to Reading (as I understand is planned), divides at Reading and continues all stations to their respective destinations?

Or am I just sniffing the crayons too much again

Trains which split are generally unpopular for people who are in the departure / arrival that spends longer at the splitting station.

They see that they have a through service and bemoan the fact that it is slow / they spend 15 minutes a day at the splitting station.

 

[HowardGWR]

They only take 9 minutes at Horsham when the Portsmouth or Southampton to Victoria joins with the Bognor that has preceded it, it having maked stops in the Arun valley. So the latter arrives at 41, the other arrives at xx46 and they depart together at xx50.

Edit: Oh I see, you mean they spend 18 mins per day at Horsham, if on the Bognor, sorry.
Edit2: Although only those stations between Barnham and Horsham have to do that and it saves them having to change.

 

[Class 170101]

GWR hasn’t deferred anything, DfT and Network Rail have imposed this decision. Given that it will financially impact on pretty much every franchise who had planned any kind of enhancement, I doubt GWR (or any of the others) are too impressed, especially as it is ultimately to hide NR’s shortcomings in both major project management and timetable planning capability.

And thats not going to go away just deferring the timetable change from December 2018 to May 2019 (or snywhere else come to that). From what I see there are plenty of nice people at NR but frankly most are out of their depth and with a poor training scheme it seems these issues are unlikely to be able to be addressed anytime soon.

 

[FenMan]

It hasn’t changed and negotiations with NR and others, now for May 2019, are ongoing.

GWR have asked to make a few minor passenger alterations for December 2018 and are currently awaiting the go/no go from DfT and NR HQ. There has to be an ECS change from May 2018 base anyway because of the HST/IET cascade and the closure of Landore and Old Oak.

I hope that GWR / Network Rail do something about the glaring error in the current timetable, where the 8:51 weekday Redhill to Reading service is booked to stop at Ash and Farnborough North instead of North Camp and Blackwater. Excel spreadsheets can easily produce dumb results when basic checks aren't done ....

I'd imagine that Network Rail's approval would be a shoo-in, given that this is obviously a cock-up.

 

[JonathanH]

They only take 9 minutes at Horsham when the Portsmouth or Southampton to Victoria joins with the Bognor that has preceded it, it having maked stops in the Arun valley. So the latter arrives at 41, the other arrives at xx46 and they depart together at xx50.

Edit: Oh I see, you mean they spend 18 mins per day at Horsham, if on the Bognor, sorry.
Edit2: Although only those stations between Barnham and Horsham have to do that and it saves them having to change.

Yes, I was allowing for a doubling of the time for having to sit at the splitting station in both directions. I don't think people take into account the time they would have to spend waiting for a connection when they remain on a splitting train.

 

[jimm]

I hope that GWR / Network Rail do something about the glaring error in the current timetable, where the 8:51 weekday Redhill to Reading service is booked to stop at Ash and Farnborough North instead of North Camp and Blackwater. Excel spreadsheets can easily produce dumb results when basic checks aren't done ....

I'd imagine that Network Rail's approval would be a shoo-in, given that this is obviously a cock-up.

Or is it? The 08.52 is bit of a one-off service all round.

It is a stopper from Redhill to Guildford but does not run in the normal slot for a Redhill-Reading stopper, which is an xx.3x ish departure most of the day, then stands at Guildford for 12 minutes, where it is overtaken by the following departure from Gatwick Airport, and makes five intermediate stops between Guildford and Reading instead of the seven or eight of the stoppers or the three of the semi-fasts.

All of which looks rather like the result of some deliberate decision-making, rather than a cock-up.

 

[FenMan]

Or is it? The 08.52 is bit of a one-off service all round.

It is a stopper from Redhill to Guildford but does not run in the normal slot for a Redhill-Reading stopper, which is an xx.3x ish departure most of the day, then stands at Guildford for 12 minutes, where it is overtaken by the following departure from Gatwick Airport, and makes five intermediate stops between Guildford and Reading instead of the seven or eight of the stoppers or the three of the semi-fasts.

All of which looks rather like the result of some deliberate decision-making, rather than a cock-up.

I remain unconvinced that GWR would deliberately insert a call at a backwater like Ash (which is already well served from Guildford by SWR) whilst missing out the adjacent busier station that is also an interchange for the Alton line. The call at Farnborough North is more debatable, but the passenger numbers there are inflated by student traffic within narrow timebands.

Ash and Farnborough North get 1tph in each direction outside the peaks while North Camp and Blackwater get 2tph, but this service creates a one hour gap for the latter whilst providing 2tph for the former. So it does look as though someone slipped a row in a spreadsheet/planning tool and that it wasn't picked up until too late in the process.

Edit It should also be borne in mind that GWR originally planned to stop the 09:03 "fast" Gatwick - Reading service at North Camp and Blackwater, but a late change removed these calls.

 

[Bikeman78]

Trains which split are generally unpopular for people who are in the departure / arrival that spends longer at the splitting station.

They see that they have a through service and bemoan the fact that it is slow / they spend 15 minutes a day at the splitting station.

Computers do seem to have slowed down this process. When a pair of slam door units split, the front typically departed three minutes after arrival with the rear following two minutes later. That was with buckeye couplings and air hoses which had to be separated manually. More recently, pairs of 317s would split at Letchworth or Royston. The front unit would be on the move as little as 90 seconds after arrival.

 

[Bikeman78]

They only take 9 minutes at Horsham when the Portsmouth or Southampton to Victoria joins with the Bognor that has preceded it, it having maked stops in the Arun valley. So the latter arrives at 41, the other arrives at xx46 and they depart together at xx50.

Edit: Oh I see, you mean they spend 18 mins per day at Horsham, if on the Bognor, sorry.
Edit2: Although only those stations between Barnham and Horsham have to do that and it saves them having to change.

The trains used to divide at Barnham rather than Horsham. Moving the split to Horsham has resulted in a shorter journey time for Barnham and Chichester but several minutes longer for Christ's Hospital to Ford inclusive.

 

[Bikeman78]

This was your question:

I have lost count of the number of times I have posted this link to the GWR presentation, which was given many times in slightly varied forms, way back when in 2015, giving lots of information about the proposed service levels, frequency and all the rest in what was then meant to be the December 2018 timetable - including giving it in this thread on the previous page less than a month ago.

http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Travelwatch-Presentation-October-2015.pdf

Thank you for this. As a Cardiff resident the proposals are something of a disappointment. The stopping patterns will be the same as now, except for a few fast peak extras. I would have thought that one of the fast trains to Parkway could go to Swansea instead of Bristol Temple Meads. Incidentally, 113 minutes Cardiff to Paddington or vice versa is perfectly achievable with an HST. I've done it a few on times on slightly late trains that happened to get a clear run.

 

[cle]

I'd agree that a faster Cardiff train would be ideal (but it's something which can be changed easily) - and the Swansea makes most sense. If it is skipping Swindon, Didcot and even Reading (?), then connections to west of Cardiff would require a change. Especially given that I don't see the 140mph running any time soon.

 

[swt_passenger]

Computers do seem to have slowed down this process. When a pair of slam door units split, the front typically departed three minutes after arrival with the rear following two minutes later. That was with buckeye couplings and air hoses which had to be separated manually. More recently, pairs of 317s would split at Letchworth or Royston. The front unit would be on the move as little as 90 seconds after arrival.

It must also have depended on the route signalling headways. Down trains splitting at Southampton still do similar sort of times to those you suggest, maybe longer by a minute, but not extreme. Perhaps Horsham and the Arun Valley is still constrained by signalling, and is a bit of a worst case example?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I remain unconvinced that GWR would deliberately insert a call at a backwater like Ash (which is already well served from Guildford by SWR) whilst missing out the adjacent busier station that is also an interchange for the Alton line. The call at Farnborough North is more debatable, but the passenger numbers there are inflated by student traffic within narrow timebands.

Ash and Farnborough North get 1tph in each direction outside the peaks while North Camp and Blackwater get 2tph, but this service creates a one hour gap for the latter whilst providing 2tph for the former. So it does look as though someone slipped a row in a spreadsheet/planning tool and that it wasn't picked up until too late in the process.

Edit It should also be borne in mind that GWR originally planned to stop the 09:03 "fast" Gatwick - Reading service at North Camp and Blackwater, but a late change removed these calls.

Is it possibly because of the super long block sections between Aldershot South Jcn and Wokingham. If the 0852 has been overtaken at Guildford, it probably can't achieve calls at North Camp and Blackwater as they are within the long sections, but is able to call at Ash and Farnborough North which are the near side of it?

(Could also explain why the 0903 Gatwick has ended up running fast.)

 

[JonathanH]

Is it possibly because of the super long block sections between Aldershot South Jcn and Wokingham. If the 0852 has been overtaken at Guildford, it probably can't achieve calls at North Camp and Blackwater as they are within the long sections, but is able to call at Ash and Farnborough North which are the near side of it?

(Could also explain why the 0903 Gatwick has ended up running fast.)

The constraints here do seem to look like
a) the signalling sections
b) the timing of the SWR train due at Wokingham at 1026

Presumably what they were trying to do was get stops at North Camp and Blackwater in the 0903 Gatwick to Reading and at the other stations in the 0851 Redhill to Reading but the 0851 passes Blackwater at 1007 and the 0903 Gatwick to Reading is at Wokingham at the same time.

I think that a train needs to be in the platform at Wokingham before the next one can leave Blackwater and this is the worst block section on the line. Given the 0851 has five minutes of pathing time approaching Reading to access the upper level platforms, you would have thought that they probably could have put in the North Camp and Blackwater stops but perhaps they want to save the cost of potentially delaying the SWR train when services run late.

The 0851 is off-pattern because of the need for the southbound 0734 from Reading to call at local stations to Guildford which meant that the 0704 from Reading had to run through to Gatwick Airport and couldn't form a train around 0830 from Redhill.

PS - are the issues with 3tph on the North Downs being overcome for another try in the future? I'm not convinced that what we saw of the previous version was a particularly good attempt at this (particularly the swapping of the side of the hour the stoppers ran on and what happened in the morning peak).

 

[MAV39]

It must also have depended on the route signalling headways. Down trains splitting at Southampton still do similar sort of times to those you suggest, maybe longer by a minute, but not extreme. Perhaps Horsham and the Arun Valley is still constrained by signalling, and is a bit of a worst case example?

This Network Rail press release describes the removal of Billingshurst signal box and the ugrading of signalling between Horsham and Arundel in March 2014.

https://www.networkrailmediacentre....as-part-of-21m-investment-in-arun-valley-line

Pertinent extract:
"
A Victorian signal box took to the skies under a crane in the early hours of Sunday morning, marking the culmination of a £21m investment in the railway through the Arun Valley.

Billingshurst signalbox is one of three to have been taken out of use last week as signalling is upgraded on the line between Horsham and Arundel.

By replacing Victorian-era signalling systems with the most modern equivalent, Network Rail has been able to shorten the distances between signals, which means that trains can safely run closer together.

Network Rail’s route managing director for Sussex, Tim Robinson, said: "The work we have completed in the Arun Valley increases the capacity of the railway, giving us more room to run trains, and do that more reliably."

 

[FenMan]

Is it possibly because of the super long block sections between Aldershot South Jcn and Wokingham. If the 0852 has been overtaken at Guildford, it probably can't achieve calls at North Camp and Blackwater as they are within the long sections, but is able to call at Ash and Farnborough North which are the near side of it?

(Could also explain why the 0903 Gatwick has ended up running fast.)

Effective yesterday (1 August), calls at North Camp (10:01) and Blackwater (10:10) have been added to 2V54 08:51 Redhill to Reading, filling in the gap in the timetable. The calls at Ash and Farnborough North are retained.

Possibly an example of the influence of RailUK forums? I'm pleased that GWR and presumably Network Rail have fixed this. Thanks go to all concerned.

 

[infobleep]

Talking of timetable changes, I recently noticed, when travelling on a Sunday, that there seemed to be a long waiting time at Gatwick Airport for trains from Reading.

If 3tph can't happen on the North Downs Line, woild it be possible to rejig the weekday and Saturday timetables so that a longer wait could occur at Gatwick or are there too many conflicts?

The reason for wanting a longer wait is so that delayed trains can continue to Gatwick Airport rather than be turned short at Redhill.

Semi regularly trains are running late and being terminated at Redhill. This is causing passengers to end up almost an hour late into Gatwick if not more than an hour late.

The 18:34 tonight was delayed to a speed restriction over a defective track. As it was 22 minutes late into Redhill it was terminated there

It arrived at 19:59 so passengers just missed the 19:59 to Gatwick Airport. The next train wasn't until 20:25 but as that was cancelled passengers had to board the 20:33, which departed with a 2 minute delay. That train left just 9 minutes before the next Reading to Gatwick Airport train departed Redhill. So just 51 minute delay to passengers.

Still at least no compensation was due.

If there was a way to rejig the timetable it would be helpful. It's not as if Gatwick Airport isn't popular station. Just look at the number of Gatwick Express trains that go there and the fact Arun line trains don't go via Dorking to reach London but Gatwick Airport.