Reading to Waterloo Line stopping pattern

[pethadine82]

Having started to use this line, it is a very busy line.
What I don't understand is why so many stops.
The train is very full by Egham, and there is standing room only.
Even the two RPI that boarded gave up checking tickets as it was physically impossible.
I can see now how easy it is to get shoved into first class, and be liable to a penalty fare when there was no intention.
Why is the train not routed down the weybridge line then fast to waterloo.
To travel 23 miles takes a pathetic 55 mins.

 

[455driver]

Because it would have to reverse after Virginia Water to access the line to Weybridge and then there are no spare paths along the Mainline from Weybridge to Waterloo, what about the Passengers that want to go to Richmond, Twickenham etc?

 

[Antman]

Having started to use this line, it is a very busy line.
What I don't understand is why so many stops.
The train is very full by Egham, and there is standing room only.
Even the two RPI that boarded gave up checking tickets as it was physically impossible.
I can see now how easy it is to get shoved into first class, and be liable to a penalty fare when there was no intention.
Why is the train not routed down the weybridge line then fast to waterloo.
To travel 23 miles takes a pathetic 55 mins.

I'm not sure how anybody gets "shoved into first class"

When I've used it has been quite busy throughout but isn't it really intended to cater for a range of journeys between intermediate stations rather than a London to Reading fast service?

Running via Kingston today due to engineering work!

 

[30907]

When first introduced the service ran fast to and from Staines, the intermediate stops have been added over the years, starting IIRC with Feltham for the RailAir link in the late 60's!

In the early 70's there was an offpeak fast to Bracknell hourly for a few years, but that went, along with through trains to Camberley etc.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Just pulled out the October 88-May 89 BR timetable for comparison. The standard pattern from Reading each hour was:
xx04 All stations to Ascot, then Richmond, Clapham Jn and Waterloo (arrive xy10)
xx10 All stations to Wokingham then onto the North Downs line
xx24 all stations to Staines, then Feltham, Richmond, Clapham Jn and Waterloo (arrive xy39)
xx40 Fast to Wokingham then onto the North Downs line
xx44 All stations to Ascot, then onto Guildford

Quite a lot's changed!

 

[LBSCR Times]

For a while there were 4 trains an hour between Reading and Waterloo, but the DfT requested SWT withdraw them to improve reliability.

 

[Greenback]

For a while there were 4 trains an hour between Reading and Waterloo, but the DfT requested SWT withdraw them to improve reliability.

I seem to recall that being the case when I worked in Reading. Two went via Hounslow if memory serves.

The route is a high density commuter service as well as catering for the local journeys like Reading to Twickenham or Bracknell to Feltham. I don't think there's much scope for a fast service due to lack of capactiy at various points.

 

[CatfordCat]

As others have said, the line is not (generally) there to serve the Reading - central London market - even if you are aiming at the south bank, it's usually faster to go via Paddington and the Bakerloo line.

On 'up' morning peak trains, there is quite a significant passenger flow to Bracknell (for various reasons, Bracknell has quite a high flow of inward and outward commuters), Egham (particularly during college term), Staines, Feltham, Richmond and Clapham Junction as well as Waterloo.

And a fair number of passengers getting off at Twickenham - although the connection between Reading trains and trains to / from Wimbledon tend to be about minus one or two minutes in both directions so that interchange isn't as much use as it could be (although I accept that it's not possible for everything to connect with everything else)

What I'm not sure of is how many of the passengers getting off at Twickenham and Richmond are from the Berkshire end or from stations closer to London who have alternatives.

Gut feeling is that the stops at Twickenham and Richmond do more to serve commuters between those stations and Waterloo than they do commuters from the outer end of the line - and in the pm peak lead to severe overcrowding.

it's not unknown to be physically unable to get on at Clapham Junction in the evening peak which is somewhat annoying if you're travelling to one of the Berkshire stations where the next train is 30 minutes later - I commute from Berkshire to a south london destination changing at Clapham Junction - my strategy is to catch an earlier train as far as Twickenham and change to the Reading train there.

I'm aware that there was briefly a 4 trains per hour service - although a few years back when the idea of Reading - Heathrow service was suggested, there was some panic about how much time each hour the level crossing barriers at Wokingham and Egham would be down...

 

[TCDD]

Living in Staines, it's noticeable how busy the trains are in the 'opposite' direction to the peak flow to/from London. There can be as many people getting on trains to London on the evening peak as there are arriving passengers, and similar in the morning. In fact I have never travelled on a quiet 'Reading line' service. There are a lot of large companies with offices close to Staines and linked by minibus shuttles. I would very much appreciate a faster service to London, but I think capacity must really be the priority - and it's hard to see where that could come from.

 

[MarkyT]

Gut feeling is that the stops at Twickenham and Richmond do more to serve commuters between those stations and Waterloo than they do commuters from the outer end of the line - and in the pm peak lead to severe overcrowding.

Richmond, as one of the busiest stations on the SWT network, is said to be a major interchange from SWT to Underground and Overground so that must include some passengers from Reading trains.

It's not surprising most people will use the fast trains for journeys between Richmond or Twickenham and London or Clapham Junction.

. . . it's not unknown to be physically unable to get on at Clapham Junction in the evening peak which is somewhat annoying if you're travelling to one of the Berkshire stations where the next train is 30 minutes later - I commute from Berkshire to a south london destination changing at Clapham Junction - my strategy is to catch an earlier train as far as Twickenham and change to the Reading train there.

I had the same problem when I used to commute the same route occasionally if work took me to the Croydon area. A good tactic you use there, and it fits in with the prime commuting directive of whenever possible always moving forward towards your objective.

I'm aware that there was briefly a 4 trains per hour service - although a few years back when the idea of Reading - Heathrow service was suggested, there was some panic about how much time each hour the level crossing barriers at Wokingham and Egham would be down...

The Barnes area crossings are also a constraint, perhaps even more so. The route really needs some more limited stop services to tackle the overcrowding, wherever the trains go at their extremities, and there is path space between the stoppers for some more, but the Barnes and Mortlake crossings would then be closed to road traffic for even more minutes each hour than they are now, and that would probably be impossible politically to countenance. A new bypass line for the fasts is needed really, but it would likely be a very expensive tunnelled solution. See attachment for an idea which would be just over 2 miles of new alignment with a bored tunnel under the Thames. That could make a much more frequent limited stop Heathrow / Windsor / Reading service possible, all able to call at Richmond and Twickenham.

 

[Bookd]

I agree with TCDD; I sometimes need to go from Feltham to London in the evening, and although against the expected flow early evening trains will be rammed - there may be a chance of a seat after CJ. If I have time in hand I take a Weybridge line train which although slower generally has available space (at least until Syon Lane.)

 

[47271]

I'm one of the people who are part of your problem. I need to go to Richmond from London every so often. I know that the quickest way to do this is to look out for the next Reading train at Waterloo, and on I go, ramming with the best of them. Sorry about that, in future I'll bear in mind the welfare of the population of Berkshire.

Now that you've made me think about it, I've had just as many overcrowding experiences on the stoppers, or certainly as far as Mortlake or so. So I suppose that my logic has been that I might as well stand in a doorway semi fast as lurch through every station with people barging past to get off.

It's just an extremely busy route I'm afraid.

 

[Antman]

For a while there were 4 trains an hour between Reading and Waterloo, but the DfT requested SWT withdraw them to improve reliability.

Was 4tph just not sustainable with track capacity etc? The route is certainly busy enough to justify 4tph

 

[bnm]

There were very vociferous complaints from locals along the route about level crossings being closed for over 30 minutes per hour when the more intensive timetable was in operation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A new bypass line for the fasts is needed really, but it would likely be a very expensive tunnelled solution. See attachment for an idea which would be just over 2 miles of new alignment with a bored tunnel under the Thames. That could make a much more frequent limited stop Heathrow / Windsor / Reading service possible, all able to call at Richmond and Twickenham.

Out of interest, why do you suggest tunnelling under the Thames? If hypothetically you were going to build a new tunnelled route, then the obvious route would appear to be to go roughly under the existing line from Richmond up to the point where the line becomes 4-track near Barnes. Your suggestion creates a longer route for fast trains without any obvious advantage over the direct route that I can see.

 

[MarkyT]

Out of interest, why do you suggest tunnelling under the Thames? If hypothetically you were going to build a new tunnelled route, then the obvious route would appear to be to go roughly under the existing line from Richmond up to the point where the line becomes 4-track near Barnes. Your suggestion creates a longer route for fast trains without any obvious advantage over the direct route that I can see.

It's only one of many possible alignments clearly, however I was considering cost and buildability, with minimum disruption to current services during construction and maximum room for the ramps and portals. Whether or not a bored tunnel goes under a river or not makes little difference to it's cost I suspect as long as its physically possible to gain sufficient depth without exceeding sensible gradients. At the east end, my ramp would descend between the Hounslow tracks which would first be slewed apart to make room for the work by expanding into the adjacent park. At the west end there is greater length available for a ramp through the retail park following the District line alignment out to the A316 roundabout than alongside the main line where you soon encounter North Sheen level crossing. The Pets at Home outlet next to Homebase would have to close and be demolished though! I forgot the Vine Road crossing near Barnes which crosses both Hounslow and Mortlake lines on the level. This one could feasibly be replaced by a road overbridge however, going through the park and crossing the two railways just to the east of the large substation building near the junction. Alternatively as by far the quietest of all the local crossings, perhaps one or both of the Vine Road crossings could be closed to vehicles and replaced by a footbridge. Whatever the solution, suitable access to the Montessori school between the diverging routes would need to be retained by some means. If one of the Vine Road crossings closed, ideally it would be the one on the Hounslow line, as befits its new fast line status under my scheme. That would retain the school's road access across the other crossing to the South Circular and the railway's road access to the area between the junction 'V' including the substation.

 

[JonathanH]

Was 4tph just not sustainable with track capacity etc? The route is certainly busy enough to justify 4tph

At the time in the early 2000s when there was 4tph off-peak from Waterloo to Reading, there wasn't 4tph on the stopping services and a separate shuttle ran between Staines and Weybridge.

As I understand it, the shuttle service was notoriously unreliable (and caused congestion) and so the change was made to send the Waterloo-Hounslow-Reading service to Weybridge instead.

(If you think the existing Waterloo to Reading service is slow (and it is), the 2tph via Hounslow were even slower and the via Richmond service had almost caught it up by Egham).

In the December 2004 changes, there were 4tph stopping services via both Richmond and Hounslow and that doesn't leave room for 4tph to Reading.

The xx05 path from Waterloo which is used in the peak catches up with the xx58 path to Windsor by Feltham and causes delay to the Weybridge service which could then potentially delay the xx20 path from Waterloo to Reading so it probably isn't sustainable to use it outside the peaks.

Also, there is a requirement for freight paths between Brentford and Virginia Water onto the SWML which increasing passenger services would block.

 

[Harlesden]

Have there ever been any "fast" services on this line? It seems that every train throughout the day is an all-stations service.
Aside from that, a surprisingly long gap between 17:50 and 18:30 on weekdays with the 18:05 only going as far as Ascot.

 

[JamesRowden]

I have attached a diagram which I saved from the Draft Wessex Route Study which shows a proposal for the End-CP5 off-peak service pattern on the Windsor Line network. It includes:

• 2tph Reading - Waterloo via Hounslow
• 2tph Reading - Waterloo via Richmond
• 2tph Aldershot - Waterloo via Richmond
• 2tph Weybridge - Waterloo via Hounslow
• 4tph Windsor - Waterloo via Richmond
• 2tph Hounslow - Waterloo (direct)
• 2tph Hounslow - Waterloo via Richmond
• 2tph Kingston Loop - Waterloo via Richmond

 

[Greenback]

Have there ever been any "fast" services on this line? It seems that every train throughout the day is an all-stations service.
Aside from that, a surprisingly long gap between 17:50 and 18:30 on weekdays with the 18:05 only going as far as Ascot.

I've merged your separate question into this thread, which I hope will have some useful information for you.

 

[swt_passenger]

Have there ever been any "fast" services on this line? It seems that every train throughout the day is an all-stations service.
Aside from that, a surprisingly long gap between 17:50 and 18:30 on weekdays with the 18:05 only going as far as Ascot.

They are only 'all stations' west of Staines, with the peak extras skipping some stops between Wokingham and Reading. The timetable does show an 1820, in the normal half hourly pattern.

I have attached a pdf showing the Aug 2001 suburban service patterns which people may find interesting, which includes the last 4 tph to Reading, two via Hounslow and two via Richmond. As someone said earlier, at that time the Weybridge bay shuttle only ran to Staines, but I'd add that it was then only an hourly service.

 

[hassaanhc]

The September 2003 to May 2004 timetable already has Reading as only 2tph off peak.

For Reading to Waterloo via Hounslow (Route 37), there are only two services in the morning peak and none in the evening peak. However, both services from Frimley to Waterloo in the morning peak go via Hounslow (Route 27).

For Waterloo to Reading via Hounslow (Route 37), there is only one service in each peak, although the evening has two more services as far as Ascot (these two may be to Frimley, but they're under Route 37 and not 27).

Reading timetable

Hounslow Loop timetable


(PDFs courtesy of Internet Wayback Machine cache)

 

[swt_passenger]

The September 2003 to May 2004 timetable already has Reading as only 2tph off peak.

My mistake, I'd saved that diagram to the PC back in 2004, but I see from the small print that it actually dates from Aug 2001, so well before the major re-write of 2004. I've corrected the previous post.

 

[hassaanhc]

My mistake, I'd saved that diagram to the PC back in 2004, but I see from the small print that it actually dates from Aug 2001, so well before the major re-write of 2004. I've corrected the previous post.

No problem I was quite surprised when I first found it a few months ago (I only used Hounslow Loop for the first time in 2012). Like you, I'd thought that off peak Reading via Hounslow continued right through to the major timetable re-write that came into force in December 2004, but the timetable showed it had been lost by 2003. I'd imagine slammers made spare must have been used on Weybridge via Hounslow (and the circulars probably) until all 450s had arrived?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Reading still has two direct services to Waterloo via Hounslow: Depart Reading at 1723 (arrive 1856) or 1753 (arrive 1928). Both wait at Ascot for 5 minutes, and call all stations to Hounslow, then Brentford, Putney, Clapham Junction and London Waterloo.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

For a while there were 4 trains an hour between Reading and Waterloo, but the DfT requested SWT withdraw them to improve reliability.

Yes I remember those, some were more limited stops I think?

 

[455driver]

I seem to recall that being the case when I worked in Reading. Two went via Hounslow if memory serves.

The route is a high density commuter service as well as catering for the local journeys like Reading to Twickenham or Bracknell to Feltham. I don't think there's much scope for a fast service due to lack of capactiy at various points.

Weren't the paths used to extend the Weybridge to Staines services onto Waterloo via Hounslow giving us the Weybridge Waterloo trains we have today?

 

[Greenback]

Weren't the paths used to extend the Weybridge to Staines services onto Waterloo via Hounslow giving us the Weybridge Waterloo trains we have today?

Probably. My memory is a bit hazy about it

Am I right to remember that the Hounslow trains, when it was 4tph from Reading, ran fast to Wokingham?

 

[455driver]

Probably. My memory is a bit hazy about it

Am I right to remember that the Hounslow trains, when it was 4tph from Reading, ran fast to Wokingham?

I cant remember either, it does ring a bell though so it is possible/likely!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I can remember working 36 HC services to/from Reading.

If you went out as a 36 you came back as a 38 & vv.

36 - Clapham, Richmond, Staines, (Can't remember if Egham/V.Water/Sunningdale were in there, as it's a long while.), Ascot, Bracknell, Wokingham & all stns.

38 - All stns to Wokingham, Bracknell, Ascot, Sunningdale, (Longcross*), V.Water, Egham, Staines, Feltham, Richmond, Clapham, Waterloo.

* Peak hours only.

Now we don't go there and even if I was to want to go to one of those stations, I'd probably drive as it's quicker.

 

[swt_passenger]

Probably. My memory is a bit hazy about it

Am I right to remember that the Hounslow trains, when it was 4tph from Reading, ran fast to Wokingham?

Yes - please see the 2001 suburban service diagram attached to my post yesterday.