North Downs Line - Electrify the gaps?

[Rhydgaled]

Network Rail. It has been mentioned variously in the GWML RUS, and the relevant route plans for the Portsmouth Cardiff route for about three or four years - always 'subject to gauge clearance'.

I assume you use the term 'widely spouted' to imply that posters who mention it are making it up?

Nope, I used the term 'widely spouted' to imply that I had heard that mentioned in many posts. Because it was so widely mentioned, I felt it wasn't made up and assumed it must have been spoken by somebody from the rail industry (a TOC manager perhaps) or published (as an official DfT suggestion or perhaps in a railway magazine).

You're thinking of the 4REP/8TC combination, but the way that worked was that the 4REP had the installed power needed to push/pull a 12 car train, the 444 only has the power needed for itself. Your proposed additional 444 would need 4 motor coaches, rather than the 2 it has normally.

Yep, 4REP/8TC is the rolling stock I was thinking of.

 

[Lrd]

Here's an idea for South West Trains electrification, not sure if it'd release enough stock for North-Downs electrification too though:

1. Terminate the Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton Central service at Southampton Central.
2. Electrify the line from Eastleigh to Romsey
3. Order more 444s (or an updated version, possibly in 4-car rather than 5-car sets) and use them to displace 450s from Portsmouth - Waterloo (and any other fast services passengers complain about 450s on)
4. Use one of the released 450s on the Lymington service
5. Extend the Portsmouth and Southsea to Southampton Central service to Romsey via the newly electrified Eastleigh route, using the released 450s

The problem that I see with this is that most of the passengers go between Southampton and Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford. There are only a few who go to Romsey and even less to Salisbury. Doing what you suggest forces people to one train an hour. This would also lose the through train from Redbridge and Millbrook to Eastleigh (We use buses to get to Southampton centre as they are more frequent).

When you mention your last point, do you mean to reverse the train at Southampton and carry on up to Eastleigh? If so, it will be quicker for what the current passengers (between Fareham and Bitterne) do and either change at St Deny's or change at Southampton for a fast FGW service or the SWT stopper. Or, go via Hedge End and change at Eastleigh (Pompey passengers).

 

[Rhydgaled]

The problem that I see with this is that most of the passengers go between Southampton and Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford. There are only a few who go to Romsey and even less to Salisbury. Doing what you suggest forces people to one train an hour. This would also lose the through train from Redbridge and Millbrook to Eastleigh (We use buses to get to Southampton centre as they are more frequent).

When you mention your last point, do you mean to reverse the train at Southampton and carry on up to Eastleigh? If so, it will be quicker for what the current passengers (between Fareham and Bitterne) do and either change at St Deny's or change at Southampton for a fast FGW service or the SWT stopper. Or, go via Hedge End and change at Eastleigh (Pompey passengers).

Aren't the figure of 6 and Portsmouth - Southampton both only hourly? If so, what I suggested maintains the same frequency (unless the services are currently at the wrong point of the hour and cannot be moved to fill the gap properly), with the diesel service from Salisbury replaced over the Southampton Central - Eastleigh - Romsey section with an electric from Portsmouth reversing at Southampton Central. An alternative would be to electrify both routes from Southampton Central to Romsey and run a circular electric Romsey - Southampton - Romsey service, thus maintaining the Millbrook - Eastleigh direct services. I had discounted this before because it cuts the service between Romsey and Salisbury so I doubt it would be acceptable, but if as you say only a few use the train between Romsey and Salisbury it might just be alright.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

I know the NDL reasonably well and travel on it at least once a month, if not more frequently. AIUI there are four main restrictions on increasing the number and/or speed of services on the line:

1) Lack of capacity at Plats 4A/B at Reading, including short single track section over the Vastern Road bridge.
2) Shockingly long signal sections between Wokingham and North Camp
3) Lack of paths into Gatwick Airport
4) Lack of paths 'across' Guildford and Redhill

The good news is that point 1 above is being dealt with by the Reading resignalling/redevelopment and the project to add a 'Platform 4c' should be completed within the next year. (The underpass reopening to the relief side of Reading station is also underway.)

It seems to me that there are three different main 'markets' that the NDL serves. (I know I hate that word too but bear with me..)

1) Blackwater Valley commuters (to Reading or Guildford) from Crowthorne, Blackwater, Farnborough North and North Camp.
2) Regional journeys, which include a significant number to GTW, although these do not dominate over journeys to other stations.
3) Reigate commuters to London.

The current standard pattern of the NDL services are:

1tph semi-fast RDG <-> GTW via Wokingham, Guildford, Reigate, Redhill.
1tph stopping RGD <-> RDH calling at all Blackwater Valley stations and some rural stations east of Guildford.
1tph REI <-> RDH continuing to London Bridge (operated by Southern)
1tph GFD <-> ASH continuing to Ascott via Aldershot (operated by SWT)

I don't see any reason to change either the SN or SWT operated services. There is no room at GFD for an additional terminating service from the south-east (i.e. from Reigate), with or without electrification. There has been a long-held local aspiration (going back to pre-nationalisation), for a chord to be built at Dorking between the NDL and Mole Valley lines, to permit a London - Epsom - Dorking - Reigate - Croydon - London circular service, but given that it hasn't happened in the past 70 years, it's unlikely to happen in the next 70.

So that leaves us with the FGW operated services. A second all stations stopper between RDG and GFD is probably justified in the short-medium term, but getting it into GFD is the difficult part. One possibility would be to truncate it at ASH, although this would probably require a turnback siding to be built. (If this additional service is provided, then it might facilitate the speeding up of the current RDG <-> RDH stopper, by enabling it to omit calls at Sandhurst.)

Having gone through this all, my unpalatable conclusion is that electrification doesn't actually help solve many (if any) of the problems on the line. There doesn't seem much point doing anything until the Wokingham resignalling. (Not sure when that's going to be, but I vaguely remember 2017 being bandied around.)

 

[TheWalrus]

Here's an idea for South West Trains electrification, not sure if it'd release enough stock for North-Downs electrification too though:

1. Terminate the Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton Central service at Southampton Central.
2. Electrify the line from Eastleigh to Romsey
3. Order more 444s (or an updated version, possibly in 4-car rather than 5-car sets) and use them to displace 450s from Portsmouth - Waterloo (and any other fast services passengers complain about 450s on)
4. Use one of the released 450s on the Lymington service
5. Extend the Portsmouth and Southsea to Southampton Central service to Romsey via the newly electrified Eastleigh route, using the released 450s

The problem that I see with this is that most of the passengers go between Southampton and Eastleigh/Chandler's Ford. There are only a few who go to Romsey and even less to Salisbury. Doing what you suggest forces people to one train an hour. This would also lose the through train from Redbridge and Millbrook to Eastleigh (We use buses to get to Southampton centre as they are more frequent).

When you mention your last point, do you mean to reverse the train at Southampton and carry on up to Eastleigh? If so, it will be quicker for what the current passengers (between Fareham and Bitterne) do and either change at St Deny's or change at Southampton for a fast FGW service or the SWT stopper. Or, go via Hedge End and change at Eastleigh (Pompey passengers).

Im failing to see the problem here??
Imo something needs to be done about the salisbury six because theres very few passengers!

 

[anthony263]

Im failing to see the problem here??
Imo something needs to be done about the salisbury six because theres very few passengers!

I did read that there was an idea to run the salisbury - Romsey services as:

Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton Central - Eastleigh - Chandlers Ford - Romsey (Then continuing to Salisbury instead of reversing at Romsey to head back via Chandlers Ford)

 

[swt_passenger]

I did read that there was an idea to run the salisbury - Romsey services as:

Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton Central - Eastleigh - Chandlers Ford - Romsey (Then continuing to Salisbury instead of reversing at Romsey to head back via Chandlers Ford)

There was a suggestion, but it was binned in the updated London and SE RUS chapter updating the South Hants aspects of the SWML RUS. Not cost effective because it would have needed an additional unit and crew.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1) Lack of capacity at Plats 4A/B at Reading, including short single track section over the Vastern Road bridge.
2) Shockingly long signal sections between Wokingham and North Camp
3) Lack of paths into Gatwick Airport
4) Lack of paths 'across' Guildford and Redhill

There is a solution (getting underway shortly - next year I think) to your point 3 as well, the 7th platform at Gatwick, which allows the GatEx services to terminate on the fast line side (in P5 or P6) has a secondary benefit of enabling two FGW Reading services per hour...

 

[yorksrob]

I tend to agree with OxtedL that the Uckfield line should be electrified as it is part of a network of lines that are fully electrified

You could say the same for the North Downs, especially as the two hourly service terminates at Reading.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that there is great potential on the North Downs Line that is not being used due to the current service patterns. If the line was coupled with the Redhill-Tonbridge-Ashford line, it would offer an efficient/cheap alternative to travelling via London for journeys to/from Kent to the West of England and Wales. Also, Kent county council is seeking better connections between Kent and Gatwick Airport. At the momment Tonbridge is the only place in Kent where just one change (at Redhill) is required to get to Gatwick Airport (apart from going via London). I suggest the following service pattern across the two lines:

1tph London Bridge to Reading/Tonbridge (Stopping Service) (splitting at Redhill)
1tph Reading to Gatwick Airport (Maybe Brighton) (Fast/Semi-Fast)
1tph Reading to Ashford International (Fast/Semi-Fast)

These services would also have an effect of reducing capacity problems on lines into London. I believe that without electrification this would be an improvement on the present service and would signifacntly increase the justification for electrification.

 

[Whistler40145]

If in the future the line was electrified, along with the GWML to Cardiff, this could provide an alternative route for a Cardiff-Redhill-Gatwick/Brighton service using dual-voltage EMUs.

 

[Minstral25]

You could say the same for the North Downs, especially as the two hourly service terminates at Reading.

Except the Oxted DMU's have to keep time (especially Acceleration) with EMU's on the highly overcrowded lines between East Croydon and London Bridge.

Still not convinced that it is viable to electrify the lines but some great ideas being put forward.

 

[NSE]

Actually I used it last week and there was plenty of suitcases from Gatwick.
I also didn't see a connection from platforms 4a/b to the mainlines at Reading, did I miss it? If not, how does the stock get on the line and where is it stabled?

Also, at times such as for Reading Festival (I know its once a year) its an incredibly useful link. I would imagine football fans and such like use it for events so I don't think the through service should be culled at all.

 

[OxtedL]

Except the Oxted DMU's have to keep time (especially Acceleration) with EMU's on the highly overcrowded lines between East Croydon and London Bridge.

Still not convinced that it is viable to electrify the lines but some great ideas being put forward.

I like your thinking...

The way they currently seem to do this is by hanging around in P5 at East Croydon for ages nb (as well as at Oxted in both directions although to a lesser extent) before chasing an EMU from P1 to Windmill Bridge Jns and following it up. In the morning peak, it's always amusing to play "guess which service we'll follow up to LBG* today" on Uckfield trains, which of course abide by their own individual set of rules.

[*London Bridge, for the benefit of people north of the Thames... I always forget good etiquette in this respect, my apologies]

On down services it is less noticeable, but then LBG>ECR starts off with gradual acceleration and doesn't seem to require much more.

A useful window for Uckfield electrification has just about been missed now, with the Thameslink Programme coming to LBG soon it would have been useful to turn the Uckfields into services which joined elsewhere. Instead we're now either going to lose direct London trains (unlikely I hope, Southern worked hard for the amazing growth we've seen and continue to see) or have trains of amazing lengths like 4-car or 6-car using up critical paths into London Bridge, immediately after the East Grinstead Line has been upgraded to 12-car capability. And of course, post-Thameslink we could have had something outland-ish like through trains to Peterborough or Cambridge! Now we are faced with medium term but significant overcrowding in the peaks, as it isn't really clear where extra carriages will come from.

It's really, really annoying watching a window like that close. Which brings me back to a post made earlier, about waiting for Wokingham resignalling before electrifying the North Downs Line. Yes, it would be lovely to defer everything to link up as smoothly as possible, but it seems to me that if you don't do something first, people are just going to frown, see no potential and move on. The North Downs almost certainly has lots of potential in some form, but unless something happens first, it will be overlooked as too difficult. I wish they would just run it in such a way as someone would just electrify the goddam lines, and then watch as other projects sprung up from the ether to find the success.

As others have mentioned, if you travel at certain times there always seem to be airport passengers, and on weekends, lots of people seem to use the line to access the towns it links up, as well as the North Downs themselves. I remain hopeful there is potential there.

Although of course, re-reading that it sounds slightly mad, too optimistic and of course bears no relation to the way that you would run a railway. It's not my however many million to spend. :roll: Ah well.

 

[tbtc]

I think the best use for the line would be an extension of XC services, to provide a link from The North/ Birmingham/ Oxford to Gatwick/ Brighton/ Kent. But thats not going to happen any time soon... (electrification would help though)

 

[OxtedL]

I also didn't see a connection from platforms 4a/b to the mainlines at Reading, did I miss it? If not, how does the stock get on the line and where is it stabled?

I think the join is further back on the approaches to the station and I don't think there is a route into the platforms from the mainline. Trains travel from the North Downs line straight onto the mainline and into the station to get to the other platforms, I believe, although I'm never around at the right time of day to see this... Google Earth or some satellite map thingy may be your friend here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the best use for the line would be an extension of XC services, to provide a link from The North/ Birmingham/ Oxford to Gatwick/ Brighton/ Kent. But thats not going to happen any time soon... (electrification would help though)

I'm not sure that we'll ever get daytime direct XC services further round the South East than Basingstoke ever again, as the train service is becoming ever more intensive in these parts.

However, one thing that has crossed my mind is that if other XC electrification occurs, you're going to want your shiny electric stock (or pantograph-hybird voyagers ) to have third rail capability to get to Southampton. Ergo, North Downs electrification becomes very useful, and you can get trains from Manchester to Gatwick. At least in principle. NO-ONE SAY "PATHS"!!

 

[Class172]

I think the best use for the line would be an extension of XC services, to provide a link from The North/ Birmingham/ Oxford to Gatwick/ Brighton/ Kent. But thats not going to happen any time soon... (electrification would help though)

How about my fantasy open access 'Severn & Thames.' If you cannot remember the route it was Birmingham-Worcester-Swindon-Reading-Guildford-Redhill-Brighton (not all stops shown).

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

There is a solution (getting underway shortly - next year I think) to your point 3 as well, the 7th platform at Gatwick, which allows the GatEx services to terminate on the fast line side (in P5 or P6) has a secondary benefit of enabling two FGW Reading services per hour...

Thanks - I hadn't picked up on this. Some of the stuff on the internet about this suggests that this work is actually being brought forward from 2013. (A rail industry first!) All we need now is for the Wokingham resignalling to be brought forward...

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the join is further back on the approaches to the station and I don't think there is a route into the platforms from the mainline. Trains travel from the North Downs line straight onto the mainline and into the station to get to the other platforms, I believe, although I'm never around at the right time of day to see this... Google Earth or some satellite map thingy may be your friend here.

That's right, the current arrangement is a double junction off the 'Southern' almost exactly a mile before the terminus, there is then a length of double track parallel to the GW main lines, (the up and down Reading spurs) and then a single lead junction onto the down main followed by a sequence of facing crossovers allowing access to the current main and relief platforms, when XC run that way they are able to hold trains on the section between the Southern and the Mains to await their onward paths.

There is no provision for an east bound route from the mains into P4A/4B as you point out above.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

One thing which FGW could do very easily without that much effort is to go back to the Thames Trains Sunday timetable along the NDL. The current service is 1tph, with a stopping pattern that alternates every hour. (It was previously 1.5tph east of GFD and 2tph west of GFD.) The current Sunday services are packed particularly in the late afternoon/early evening period. Does anyone know why FGW reduced the service provision on Sundays?

 

[JonathanH]

One thing which FGW could do very easily without that much effort is to go back to the Thames Trains Sunday timetable along the NDL. The current service is 1tph, with a stopping pattern that alternates every hour. (It was previously 1.5tph east of GFD and 2tph west of GFD.) The current Sunday services are packed particularly in the late afternoon/early evening period. Does anyone know why FGW reduced the service provision on Sundays?

Not quite, the Sunday service was a semi-fast each hour and a stopper every other hour and needed 6 units. The current Sunday service needs 4 units and presumably satisfies the minimum service required by the DfT. It consequently saves the operator and money and therefore reduces the subsidy required. The extra stopper ran just from Reading to Guildford typically ran on the run up to Christmas each year.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

Not quite, the Sunday service was a semi-fast each hour and a stopper every other hour and needed 6 units. The current Sunday service needs 4 units and presumably satisfies the minimum service required by the DfT. It consequently saves the operator and money and therefore reduces the subsidy required. The extra stopper ran just from Reading to Guildford typically ran on the run up to Christmas each year.

Interesting. I think you're right about the extra services in the run up to Christmas - I seem to have misremembered them being put on throughout the year!

Your comment about subsidy is also interesting. I seem to remember that the old Thames Trains franchise ran successfully without subsidy for a number of years and the only reason that FGWLink were given a subsidy after taking over the TT franchise, was to pay for HSTs to replace Turbos on the Oxford <-> Paddington workings. If that's the case then it seems a little 'cowardly' of the DfT not to insist that the TT service provision was not matched on the other routes in the franchise.

It does seem to me that TT were a little more enterprising with the NDL (such as laying on the additional pre-Christmas services that you mention above), than FGW are now.

 

[JonathanH]

Interesting. I think you're right about the extra services in the run up to Christmas - I seem to have misremembered them being put on throughout the year!

Your comment about subsidy is also interesting. I seem to remember that the old Thames Trains franchise ran successfully without subsidy for a number of years and the only reason that FGWLink were given a subsidy after taking over the TT franchise, was to pay for HSTs to replace Turbos on the Oxford <-> Paddington workings. If that's the case then it seems a little 'cowardly' of the DfT not to insist that the TT service provision was not matched on the other routes in the franchise.

It does seem to me that TT were a little more enterprising with the NDL (such as laying on the additional pre-Christmas services that you mention above), than FGW are now.

Remember, all FGW have to do is provide the service in this document
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...publicregister-current-fgw/fgwcommitment2.pdf (SLC2)

My comment about subsidy was conjecture but it must be cheaper to run the current Sunday service than the one that existed before.

SLC2 requires 18 trains on a Sunday with the smaller stations served every two hours. Presumably there will be a consultation for the timetable in the new franchise.

As you may recall, the original published draft of the December 2006 timetable basically suggested a service which was skip stop throughout off-peak hours. It was drafted with half-hourly trains through to Gatwick without using more units. One flaw of this timetable was the loss of connections at Redhill into fast trains into London.

As it happened, the skip-stop pattern didn't happen on weekdays, but from December 2006, 8 units were allocated on weekdays for that timetable with some strange stock utilisation, notably one train sat in Redhill sidings from about 10am until it picked up an extra semi-fast back from Gatwick in the evening peak. In the morning, units had an hour long layover at Gatwick. With the next timetable, the unit requirement dropped back to 7 - presumably the DfT had allocated 8 units to enable more trains to get to Gatwick but the paths couldn't be found.

The skip-stop pattern was left in place on Sundays with trains running hourly (slowing them down by about 12 minutes). This created obvious problems for travel between adjacent stations so at the next revision the current timetable was put in place.