Milton Keynes to Clapham/Croydon - Southern Service.

[Bletchleyite]

Southern and Thameslink are the same company, Govia Thameslink Railway. The branding on the outside of the train isn't really an issue.

The original GatRug (Gatwick-Rugby) was Southern's predecessor Connex SC, anyway.

 

[cle]

I can't see much changing until HS2 and the new patterns on the WCML.

As faster 'slow line' services migrate to the fasts, plans did call for more terminators at Tring and Watford. Bletchley too I recall, which will have a bigger role in future.

Perhaps this route is better served as 2tph Croydon/Clapham to Watford (p10) - 378s or other duals, high speed not needed that badly given distances - running up the slows from Wembley to Watford and providing the local calls along that stretch.

Notably though, these currently skip Bushey. Having all three south of Watford calls might mangle up the Euston services heading north of Watford, which will still be the priority and include semi-fasts. So some skip-stopping, like today might be needed. Do people need Bushey and Harrow on the same services?

Loose, eternal plans for a Willesden Junction slows station might actually help regulate the ex-Euston services to not catch up with a Wembley-calling WLL ahead of it, perhaps!

 

[The Planner]

Slow line Willesden is a sizeable pie in the sky methinks.

 

[Jimini]

The original GatRug (Gatwick-Rugby) was Southern's predecessor Connex SC, anyway.

Used that a lot in the late '90s. Was a very handy service to get from Northampton back to Epsom without fannying around in town getting the tube etc. (and cheaper, too).

Last time I used it in its current form, I went to Wembley from Balham to watch a footy match. £1.50 on PAYG. Now that was a bargain!

 

[Flinn Reed]

I agree with some other comments that the Milton Keynes to Croydon route is an odd mix of different types of service on each section - duplicating LNR, then slow speeds on the unique section between Wembley and Shepherds Bush, including the extra stop to switch power supply, then becoming an all stations metro service towards Croydon. There are some useful links within this, and the service is well used, but really needs more than 1tph.

I think the overall route would work best as a semi-fast service throughout, using the faster lines between Clapham and Croydon, and possibly continuing onwards to Brighton. Within GTR, this might fit better under the Thameslink brand as has been suggested above - 700s are also dual voltage. It is less easy to be made faster on the shared section with the Overground, though I would question if calls are needed at all of these stops. Shepherds Bush is by far the busiest and most useful, and West Brompton offers interchange to the District Line, though few passengers use Southern services at Kensington Olympia or Imperial Wharf - could the middle track at Olympia be used if needed? I also wonder if the overhead wires could be extended a short distance to Shepherds Bush, allowing trains to switch voltage while stopping anyway at the station.

Alternatively, the service might work better under London Northwestern Railway instead, and no longer running south of Clapham Junction. This would concentrate more as a link from WCML stations to connections at Clapham, plus Shepherds Bush for Westfield - and could be better timetabled with LNR's Euston stoppers between Wembley and Milton Keynes.

However, I think the ideal solution would be to construct additional platforms at Willesden Junction for stopping LNR services. This would offer connections from the WCML to services via Shepherds Bush, Acton Central, West Hampstead and Paddington, plus the nearby hub at Old Oak Common. Both LNR services from Euston and WLL Overground services would need to be increased in frequency.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the overall route would work best as a semi-fast service throughout, using the faster lines between Clapham and Croydon, and possibly continuing onwards to Brighton.

We need to be careful about straying into speculation but the point is that the Southern part of this service is now established as a stopper linking Croydon, the railway corridor through Norbury and the Shepherds Bush area - taking this away would result in a loss of established travel patterns. Just saying it ought to run on the fasts, beyond the track issues, ignores the fact that the demand for those track paths is much more significant to Victoria than the West London Line.

 

[DJS76]

I agree with some other comments that the Milton Keynes to Croydon route is an odd mix of different types of service on each section - duplicating LNR, then slow speeds on the unique section between Wembley and Shepherds Bush, including the extra stop to switch power supply, then becoming an all stations metro service towards Croydon. There are some useful links within this, and the service is well used, but really needs more than 1tph.

I think the overall route would work best as a semi-fast service throughout, using the faster lines between Clapham and Croydon, and possibly continuing onwards to Brighton. Within GTR, this might fit better under the Thameslink brand as has been suggested above - 700s are also dual voltage. It is less easy to be made faster on the shared section with the Overground, though I would question if calls are needed at all of these stops. Shepherds Bush is by far the busiest and most useful, and West Brompton offers interchange to the District Line, though few passengers use Southern services at Kensington Olympia or Imperial Wharf - could the middle track at Olympia be used if needed? I also wonder if the overhead wires could be extended a short distance to Shepherds Bush, allowing trains to switch voltage while stopping anyway at the station.

Alternatively, the service might work better under London Northwestern Railway instead, and no longer running south of Clapham Junction. This would concentrate more as a link from WCML stations to connections at Clapham, plus Shepherds Bush for Westfield - and could be better timetabled with LNR's Euston stoppers between Wembley and Milton Keynes.

However, I think the ideal solution would be to construct additional platforms at Willesden Junction for stopping LNR services. This would offer connections from the WCML to services via Shepherds Bush, Acton Central, West Hampstead and Paddington, plus the nearby hub at Old Oak Common. Both LNR services from Euston and WLL Overground services would need to be increased in frequency.

Originally this service ran non stop between Croydon and Clapham crossing between the slow and fast lines just north of Balham but I believe it was this movement that used to cause delays to other services which is why it became a metro service. I think there is also a reluctance to terminate all trains at Clapham Junction from the North due to the narrow and curved platform 17.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Originally this service ran non stop between Croydon and Clapham crossing between the slow and fast lines just north of Balham but I believe it was this movement that used to cause delays to other services which is why it became a metro service. I think there is also a reluctance to terminate all trains at Clapham Junction from the North due to the narrow and curved platform 17.

It was minor havoc at the footbridge and subway when it did used to terminate there!

It is a service that doesn't really fit into any specific box (in many ways like a less-frequent Thameslink but without the central London bit), but it is very useful indeed.

 

[zwk500]

There are some useful links within this, and the service is well used, but really needs more than 1tph.

Nice idea, but Falcon Jn (Clapham Junction) and Willesden Sudbury Jn aren't easy to get moves across.

using the faster lines between Clapham and Croydon,

You cannot physically cross to the fast lines until Balham, which has a 20mph speed limit. Crossing at Streatham North Jn isnt possible, so you can't get on the fast lines until south of East Croydon Station.

though I would question if calls are needed at all of these stops.

because you're inevitably following an all stations, you may as well stop in the platform than at a red signal.

I also wonder if the overhead wires could be extended a short distance to Shepherds Bush, allowing trains to switch voltage while stopping anyway at the station.

This has been looked at very recently, and the conclusion was that the benefits were very marginal.

Alternatively, the service might work better under London Northwestern Railway instead, and no longer running south of Clapham Junction. This would concentrate more as a link from WCML stations to connections at Clapham, plus Shepherds Bush for Westfield - and could be better timetabled with LNR's Euston stoppers between Wembley and Milton Keynes.

However, I think the ideal solution would be to construct additional platforms at Willesden Junction for stopping LNR

Although LNR running to Clapham makes sense from a WCML side, it means there's a slow train between Croydon and Clapham that's been removed and replacing it with a standalone service may be tricky.
Additional Platforms at Willesden Junction would be a right pain in the neck to fit in on the WCML as you'd need all 4 lines for the 2-track, any change to the alignment is likely to reduce the line speed and stopping just as the line speed opens up would be a considerable capacity hit.
If anything additional platforms on the Reliefs might be more feasible, west of the junction, as there's room to slue the tracks over and they're already low speed so a slow speed thorugh the platform wouldn't be as big a problem.

 

[Flinn Reed]

Although LNR running to Clapham makes sense from a WCML side, it means there's a slow train between Croydon and Clapham that's been removed and replacing it with a standalone service may be tricky.
Additional Platforms at Willesden Junction would be a right pain in the neck to fit in on the WCML as you'd need all 4 lines for the 2-track, any change to the alignment is likely to reduce the line speed and stopping just as the line speed opens up would be a considerable capacity hit.
If anything additional platforms on the Reliefs might be more feasible, west of the junction, as there's room to slue the tracks over and they're already low speed so a slow speed thorugh the platform wouldn't be as big a problem.

The Clapham to Croydon section currently has 2tph to Victoria stopping at all stations, at regular intervals - so the supplementary WLL service does not provide an even service here. Typically, Southern services from the Shepherds Bush area tend to empty out at Clapham Junction, so perhaps the section to Croydon would cope with no replacement. Without any infrastructure changes, I think transferring most of the route to LNR would be the best option to simplify the service and better timetable with others on the WCML. Regarding terminating trains at Clapham Junction, Southern services already do this on Sundays.

With Willesden Junction, I can see that creating another Old Oak Common style hub would be too complex. However, my suggestion would be to just create two new platforms for stopping services on the WCML, likely just those to Tring, or possibly MKC too. Maybe a total of 4tph, including a replacement for the Southern service on the WCML (diverted into Euston), but with varying stopping patterns as needed. There is space either side of the tracks to construct platforms. While an extra stop might slow such services down slightly, I think this would be outweighed by interchange opportunities at Willesden, particularly with the faster LNR services alongside (non-stop to Watford).

 

[The Planner]

Additional Platforms at Willesden Junction would be a right pain in the neck to fit in on the WCML as you'd need all 4 lines for the 2-track, any change to the alignment is likely to reduce the line speed and stopping just as the line speed opens up would be a considerable capacity hit.
If anything additional platforms on the Reliefs might be more feasible, west of the junction, as there's room to slue the tracks over and they're already low speed so a slow speed thorugh the platform wouldn't be as big a problem.

Willesden on the slows has been looked at more times than I care to remember. You would only build slow line platforms, as the cost of using buses on a slow line block vs all line platforms vastly outweighs the other. You probably wouldn't even do that and tell people to swap to the DCs at Wembley.

 

[cle]

I think only slow line platforms is fine - reliefs would be useful too. But fasts probably aren't needed.

In reality, building four new platforms (six faces, but relief as island, slow/fast sides) - would cost a fortune in lifts alone. Maybe after HS2 and there are like 4-6tph to Watford and Tring which could all stop - and lots of corresponding housing development - but until then, nope.

I do remember when nothing semi-fast or fast called at Stratford really. And now look. So I think if the area takes off with OOC, possibly.

 

[alf]

This has been looked at very recently, and the conclusion was that the benefits were very marginal.

By whom? & were the benefits quantified? The office clerk?

Running 25 Kv overhead a further kilometre to Shepherd’s Bush seems obvious & very sensible.

It saves 40 Southern trains probably two minutes each train.
At 150 passengers a train at the standard time valuation of about £10 an hour that is over a million pounds per annum public time saved.

It would also ends the London Overground changing over on the move, which I am told has already cost over £50,000 in destroyed pantographs plus huge delay time.

Re the red herring, alleged electrical issues; The WCML has run under the fourth rail four track Met line north of Wembley for half a century without problems.

 

[Kite159]

Isn't one of the issues with extending the overhead wires towards Shepherd's Bush due to there being a couple bridges which would need raising to give the required clearance?

 

[zwk500]

By whom? & were the benefits quantified? The office clerk?

Why should I answer questions asked so aggressively and rudely?

 

[XAM2175]

It would also ends the London Overground changing over on the move, which I am told has already cost over £50,000 in destroyed pantographs plus huge delay time.

By whom?

 

[IrishDave]

Nice idea, but Falcon Jn (Clapham Junction) and Willesden Sudbury Jn aren't easy to get moves across.

The Clapham to Croydon section currently has 2tph to Victoria stopping at all stations, at regular intervals - so the supplementary WLL service does not provide an even service here. Typically, Southern services from the Shepherds Bush area tend to empty out at Clapham Junction, so perhaps the section to Croydon would cope with no replacement. Without any infrastructure changes, I think transferring most of the route to LNR would be the best option to simplify the service and better timetable with others on the WCML. Regarding terminating trains at Clapham Junction, Southern services already do this on Sundays.

The timetable for the Southern trains is planned around parallel moves at Falcon Jn and Sudbury Jn - indeed, the journey time between those two junctions isn't quite 30 minutes, so it's stretched to 30 minutes with some pathing time or additional dwell time to make everything work, giving an hourly service. This hourly off peak service allows the path on the opposite half-hour to be used for an hourly freight path on the Brighton Main Line, which breaks the symmetry of an otherwise half-hourly repeating pattern on the Brighton slow lines through Clapham Junction. In the peaks, freight doesn't run and the paths are used to provide a half-hourly Southern service.

 

[swt_passenger]

By whom? & were the benefits quantified? The office clerk?

Running 25 Kv overhead a further kilometre to Shepherd’s Bush seems obvious & very sensible.

It saves 40 Southern trains probably two minutes each train.
At 150 passengers a train at the standard time valuation of about £10 an hour that is over a million pounds per annum public time saved.

It would also ends the London Overground changing over on the move, which I am told has already cost over £50,000 in destroyed pantographs plus huge delay time.

Re the red herring, alleged electrical issues; The WCML has run under the fourth rail four track Met line north of Wembley for half a century without problems.

The explanation I read somewhere online was that the LU signalling in the vicinity was not immunised against AC, and although it could be altered, it would only be needed for a few years until the SSR re-signalling took place. That project has been put back repeatedly, but I guess was always considered just about to be done, so made LU unwilling to change the existing signalling.

(Back in a discussion in 2010, I had found an explanation in the 2006 NR Cross London RUS, that suggested moving the changeover point would be looked at after 2013, when the H&C would have been resignalled, and here we are in 2021…)

 

[zwk500]

The explanation I read somewhere online was that the LU signalling in the vicinity was not immunised against AC, and although it could be altered, it would only be needed for a few years until the SSR re-signalling took place. That project has been put back repeatedly, but I guess was always considered just about to be done, so made LU unwilling to change the existing signalling.

(Back in a discussion in 2010, I had found an explanation in the 2006 NR Cross London RUS, that suggested moving the changeover point would be looked at after 2013, when the H&C would have been resignalled, and here we are in 2021…)

LU signalling is not relevant to the WLL, and the example of a grade-separated line provided by the post you quoted is equally not relevant.

The problems between 750v DC 3rd Rail and 25KV AC OLE are well known about but also very solvable. The difficulty is working out the cost of solving them vs the benefit gained by doing so. On the West London Line the electrification discussion is also complicated slightly by the need to consider Class 92s on Wembley-Dollands Moor runs. None of it is insurmountable, but when the gain was only 1 minute for 1tph in each direction (overground and freight had no change to the overall time) and no additional paths, I'd be surprise if it won out against other projects.

Either way, extension of the wires is getting Off-topic.

 

[Bishopstone]

This service is being removed in entirety, Monday-Friday, as of Monday (26th) as Southern are struggling with crew availability:

https://www.southernrailway.com/tra...spx?_id=214958152B614061AF06DEDAE6A66711&_z=z

 

[Sm5]

This service is being removed in entirety, Monday-Friday, as of Monday (26th) as Southern are struggling with crew availability:

https://www.southernrailway.com/tra...spx?_id=214958152B614061AF06DEDAE6A66711&_z=z

I hope this remains temporary.

Interesting choice killing this route, 377/2 with pantographs become spare.

it makes getting north to south a bit of a pain, change at Wembley and again at Willesden, especially if your disabled.

 

[JonathanH]

it makes getting north to south a bit of a pain, change at Wembley and again at Willesden, especially if your disabled.

I suspect people will go via Euston / St Pancras rather than change at Wembley and Willesden for longer distance journeys although I concede that is more expensive in many cases and not any use for flows on the west side of London.

 

[sk688]

This service is being removed in entirety, Monday-Friday, as of Monday (26th) as Southern are struggling with crew availability:

https://www.southernrailway.com/tra...spx?_id=214958152B614061AF06DEDAE6A66711&_z=z

Southern website now says 2 trains a day will run :


05.27 Balham to Milton Keynes Central

07.01 Milton Keynes Central to Selhurst

17.16 Selhurst to Milton Keynes Central

19.16 Milton Keynes Central to Selhurst

still a massive cutback from hourly , and as a regular user ,I definitely hope it returns sooner rather than later

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those (except maybe the first one and last one which are really positioning moves running in service) are in my experience certainly the busiest ones.

 

[A60stock]

Have southern provided any updated information as to whether the service will return any time soon?

 

[Bald Rick]

By whom? & were the benefits quantified? The office clerk?

Running 25 Kv overhead a further kilometre to Shepherd’s Bush seems obvious & very sensible.

It saves 40 Southern trains probably two minutes each train.
At 150 passengers a train at the standard time valuation of about £10 an hour that is over a million pounds per annum public time saved.

It would also ends the London Overground changing over on the move, which I am told has already cost over £50,000 in destroyed pantographs plus huge delay time.

Re the red herring, alleged electrical issues; The WCML has run under the fourth rail four track Met line north of Wembley for half a century without problems.

By me. (Albeit 15 years ago).

By far the easiest way of avoiding the need for Southern services to stop to change power systems is to change their Driver Standards manual, and let drivers do it on the fly. Cost - a few thousand pounds in risk assessment and reprinting.

 

[Sm5]

Have southern provided any updated information as to whether the service will return any time soon?

377/2’s are deployed on Victoria -Epsom quite a bit recently, so they aren't sitting idle, its a subtle change from the usual 377/3/4/6.

 

[RichardKing]

377/2’s are deployed on Victoria -Epsom quite a bit recently, so they aren't sitting idle, its a subtle change from the usual 377/3/4/6.

There was a /2 on my Victoria-Eastbourne service on Monday.

 

[A60stock]

What's the latest on this service. When does it run (or some form of service run)

 

[Lewlew]

Four trains a day at the moment (since the 13th Dec)

0527 Balham - Milton Keynes 0655
0701 Milton Keynes - Selhurst 0853

1716 Selhurst - Milton Keynes 1901
1916 Milton Keynes - Selhurst 2053

https://www.southernrailway.com/wintertt21

That's up until today the 24th so presumably from the New Year it'll be back to a full service.