SWT plans?

[Goldfish62]

Sorry, but the work in that document in not committed or funded until ORR signs off the CP5 plans in March next year. It is currently just an ongoing part of the NR response to the DfT's HLOS, following similar timescales to what they did for CP4.

I don't mean to go on about this, or dispute your knowledge, but Virginia Water - Reading platform extensions appears in a tabled headed CP5 Schemes Committed and Funded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But SWT announced the extra peak Reading services as part of the internal cascade allowed for by the 458/5s coming into service, so 6 months before the 456s were first mentioned. Maybe it's achieved as a knock on effect of there being 36 x 458/5s? (The two services in each peak are mentioned in those lists in my first reply to this thread.)

The 28 450/5s are currently supplemented by a number of 450/0s and at least one pair of 455s on a late AM peak Hounslow loop working. Maybe they've been able to squeeze another couple of 455s out of current diagrams to give the 4 extras units that the Reading line will need.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Weren't the paths for those round the Hounslow loop taken over by the Weybridge services?

Yes, prior to the 2004 change the Weybridge services were just a shuttle to Staines.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't mean to go on about this, or dispute your knowledge, but Virginia Water - Reading platform extensions appears in a tabled headed CP5 Schemes Committed and Funded.

Fair enough. Although I reckon that table is only showing that those schemes are being 'developed' - the page only concerns the 'CP5 development fund'.

However I'm not trying to say it isn't going to happen - it's far, far more likely than many proposals voiced in the forums. That table you've found also suggests that internal PR for SWT staff might need changing - it usually seems to be SWT staff who insist it isn't happening...

 

[tbtc]

They were for a few years broadly between 1997-2004 (I think- will take a while to get my old timetables out)

You had the xx20 and xx50 services as now, plus xx05 and xx35 calling Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Putney, Hounslow, Feltham, Ashford, Staines, Egham, Sunningdale, Ascot, Martins Heron, Bracknell, Wokingham and Reading. Ended up being just seven minutes in front of following train at Egham, but restored the gap with non stop run into Reading.

At that time, the xx20 and xx50 were normally VEP operated and carried route code 38, while the xx05 and xx35 were typically a CIG/CEP combination with route code 37. Was living in Wokingham at the time and if going into Reading would always try to get the extras for the non stop run in a CIG

prior to the 2004 change the Weybridge services were just a shuttle to Staines

Thanks both - I wondered why there appeared to be no pressure to increase the frequency (rather than spend all this money on extending services/ platforms), but I presume that it'd be virtually impossible to take away Weybridge's service to Waterloo (since everything appears to be a zero sum game)

 

[JamesRowden]

Thanks both - I wondered why there appeared to be no pressure to increase the frequency (rather than spend all this money on extending services/ platforms), but I presume that it'd be virtually impossible to take away Weybridge's service to Waterloo (since everything appears to be a zero sum game)

The RUS stated that there are 2 spare peak paths per hour on the Windsor lines via Brentford and suggested using them. At the momment there are 8tph in the peak between Staines and Waterloo:

Reading-Ascot-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X3
Aldershot-Ascot-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X1
Windsor-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X2
Weybridge-Staines-Brentford-Waterloo X2
(+ Kinsgton Loop Twickenham-Waterloo)

The spare paths were planned to be used by 'Air Track' but that project has been stopped now.

 

[455driver]

I don't mean to go on about this, or dispute your knowledge, but Virginia Water - Reading platform extensions appears in a tabled headed CP5 Schemes Committed and Funded.

What page is that on then, I am certainly not trawling through 250 pages to find out what context that table is being used.

 

[swt_passenger]

What page is that on then, I am certainly not trawling through 250 pages to find out what context that table is being used.

Page 51.

 

[455driver]

This bit from page 51 might just be relevant-

The fund will be used to develop schemes not otherwise funded in CP4 through the PR08 settlement, and
which are considered likely to be required, and funded for delivery, primarily during CP5. The fund would
generally cover early stage development costs and separate funding would generally be required for
detailed design work and other significant costs such as Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)
processes.

Shows that the scheme is not funded at all, although there is an aspiration to fund it during CP5 there is no firm commitment to the funding!

 

[tbtc]

The RUS stated that there are 2 spare peak paths per hour on the Windsor lines via Brentford and suggested using them. At the momment there are 8tph in the peak between Staines and Waterloo:

Reading-Ascot-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X3
Aldershot-Ascot-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X1
Windsor-Staines-Twickenham-Waterloo X2
Weybridge-Staines-Brentford-Waterloo X2
(+ Kinsgton Loop Twickenham-Waterloo)

The spare paths were planned to be used by 'Air Track' but that project has been stopped now.

Thanks James

 

[Matt Taylor]

The Readings could be reinstated at the expense of the Weybridge trains IMO. People from Chertsey and Addlestone change at Weybridge or Virginia Water for Waterloo as it's quicker, I really don't see any significant demand from either Addlestone or Chertsey for stations east of Staines and this would also allow a retiming of the services in and out of Weybridge bay to give people better connections to Waterloo via Surbiton.

 

[09065]

SDO on 60% of stations the Reading services call at is impractical and unworkable on such a busy route. Also if platforms are lengthened in some cases signals will need to be moved, as is the case already with many of the ongoing extensions.

Not an issue if SWT instigates it's automated SDO system plans

 

[Surreyman]

Not an issue if SWT instigates it's automated SDO system plans

Pity they don' just bite the bullet and go for 12 car trains & stations.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I see on SWT website that they operated a train from platform 20 at Waterloo, but services won't operate from there until next year.. I wonder if the other platforms 21-25 will come into use too, it's been such a waste not using those since eurostar moved out.

 

[Monty]

Not an issue if SWT instigates it's automated SDO system plans

SDO can increase dwell times at stations. Doing it once or twice during a journey isn't such a big deal but doing at 10+ stations is.

 

[455driver]

I see on SWT website that they operated a train from platform 20 at Waterloo, but services won't operate from there until next year.. I wonder if the other platforms 21-25 will come into use too, it's been such a waste not using those since eurostar moved out.

The reason P20 is easy to bring back into use is because they are going to knock holes in the wall to P19 so people can leave/enter the platform easily, P21-24 you cant do that so everyone has to use the steps to and from the undercroft which wont pass fire regs/evacuation rules, a couple of eurostars is one thing but 3 or 4 peak loaded trains is another.

 

[JonathanH]

The Readings could be reinstated at the expense of the Weybridge trains IMO. People from Chertsey and Addlestone change at Weybridge or Virginia Water for Waterloo as it's quicker, I really don't see any significant demand from either Addlestone or Chertsey for stations east of Staines and this would also allow a retiming of the services in and out of Weybridge bay to give people better connections to Waterloo via Surbiton.

These are valid points but I don't think that passengers from South Berkshire would appreciate their train stopping at all stations via Hounslow if this happened.

The timings don't work to run a semi-fast and two stoppers in each half hour via Hounslow without the semi-fast catching up the stopper and the local residents via Mortlake don't want any more trains over the level crossings.

 

[JamesRowden]

These are valid points but I don't think that passengers from South Berkshire would appreciate their train stopping at all stations via Hounslow if this happened.

The timings don't work to run a semi-fast and two stoppers in each half hour via Hounslow without the semi-fast catching up the stopper and the local residents via Mortlake don't want any more trains over the level crossings.

I think that you are mistaken. The stopping service via Brentford takes only 16 minutes longer between Staines and Clapham Junction than the fastest services via Twickenham. Maintaining at least a five minute gap between the two services (stopping and fast) would mean that a fast service via Brentford could be four minutes faster than travelling via Richmond (30-2X5-16) (this time may not be achievable because of line speed).

As I said earlier the RUS said that these paths were available (dependent on international platforms coming back into use [looks like platform 20 will be able to meet the task]) and these paths were to be used by 'Air Track' which would have involved non-stop services between Clapham Junction and Staines.

When I made this post I did not consdier the Waterloo-Brentford-Hounslow-(Waterloo) services

 

[Matt Taylor]

SDO can increase dwell times at stations. Doing it once or twice during a journey isn't such a big deal but doing at 10+ stations is.

When done properly there is no reason that SDO should take longer than a normal stop. Any delays would be due to passengers being in the wrong place on the platform but that will be irrelevant once ASDO is in operation.

 

[JamesRowden]

These are valid points but I don't think that passengers from South Berkshire would appreciate their train stopping at all stations via Hounslow if this happened.

The timings don't work to run a semi-fast and two stoppers in each half hour via Hounslow without the semi-fast catching up the stopper and the local residents via Mortlake don't want any more trains over the level crossings.

I think that you are mistaken. The stopping service via Brentford takes only 16 minutes longer between Staines and Clapham Junction than the fastest services via Twickenham. Maintaining at least a five minute gap between the two services (stopping and fast) would mean that a fast service via Brentford could be four minutes faster than travelling via Richmond (30-2X5-16) (this time may not be achievable because of line speed).

As I said earlier the RUS said that these paths were available (dependent on international platforms coming back into use [looks like platform 20 will be able to meet the task]) and these paths were to be used by 'Air Track' which would have involved non-stop services between Clapham Junction and Staines.

Just noticed the Waterloo - Hounslow services making it an every 15 minute service along the Brentford line (every 30 minutes did seem too infrequent ).

I think this means that for fast services via Brentford to be fast enough, the stopping services would need to be altered something like every 10-20 minutes (while maintaining 4tph) with the fast trains calling at the more important stations along the route and taking four minutes longer than the route via Twickenham (12 minutes faster than the stopping services via Brentford).

 

[09065]

Pity they don' just bite the bullet and go for 12 car trains & stations.

Purleeeze

That is like saying that to run a train service you need to have a train.
Commonsense is not a popular word on a working railway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When done properly there is no reason that SDO should take longer than a normal stop. Any delays would be due to passengers being in the wrong place on the platform but that will be irrelevant once ASDO is in operation.

Last time I was forwarded a copy of the SWT Propaganda up here it said that ASDO will be almost the same as SNs in that it will open every carriage completely on the platform (IE 9 coach SDO on a 12*450 would be possible).

Is that still the plan?

 

[swt_passenger]

Last time I was forwarded a copy of the SWT Propaganda up here it said that ASDO will be almost the same as SNs in that it will open every carriage completely on the platform (IE 9 coach SDO on a 12*450 would be possible).

That is the plan to the best of my knowledge. They are fitting the balises to 168 stations on SWT's network - which I suspect (without counting) covers roughly everywhere except the West of England route. I was told by a guards manager a couple of years ago that every Desiro will be fitted, as well as the 458/5s, and ASDO will be used wherever it is useful, eg at places like Shawford and Beaulieu Rd.

So it isn't just a Windsor side project at all. One of the things I've noticed is that the balises are also fitted at 12 car platforms, such as at Reading. Also one of the future options is to include correct side door enable (CSDE) like the underground uses.

There's a detailed description of how it works here: http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/04/12/being-selective/

 

[edwin_m]

When done properly there is no reason that SDO should take longer than a normal stop. Any delays would be due to passengers being in the wrong place on the platform but that will be irrelevant once ASDO is in operation.

What about people in the wrong place on the train? Or is the assumption that they won't be able to make it though during the stop and will be overcarried? What happens if passengers with lots of luggage board the wrong coach or the train is too busy for people to get through? This could be a particular issue for a train from Waterloo where the rear coaches nearest the barrier there will also be the ones that don't serve the short platforms. Even more of a problem if one of the wheelchair spaces is beyond the end of any of the platforms.

Except at very lightly-used stations or where the conductor can reliably get down the train to identify any problems in advance, SDO really needs some means of ensuring that people don't board the wrong coach in the first place. This would probably involve a fairly sophisticated visual information system plus an irritating number of PA announcements.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about people in the wrong place on the train? Or is the assumption that they won't be able to make it though during the stop and will be overcarried? What happens if passengers with lots of luggage board the wrong coach or the train is too busy for people to get through? This could be a particular issue for a train from Waterloo where the rear coaches nearest the barrier there will also be the ones that don't serve the short platforms. Even more of a problem if one of the wheelchair spaces is beyond the end of any of the platforms.

All of what you describe already occurs on trains leaving Waterloo that currently use 'unit deselect' as a form of SDO, (eg front 8 cars of 12 or front 5 of 10 etc etc). The announcements, PIS displays and internal displays all attempt to cover these situations already, like they do for trains splitting somewhere on route.

I think you are creating a problem that doesn't exist. Having 7 cars of 8 with the doors open, or whatever, has got to be an improvement on 4 from 8, however good the announcements are...

 

[hwl]

SDO really needs some means of ensuring that people don't board the wrong coach in the first place. This would probably involve a fairly sophisticated visual information system plus an irritating number of PA announcements.

That is exactly how southern do it (on 377s), plenty of automated PA announcements and display screen messages. If you get on the wrong coach you just walk to the next carriage.

If you aren't in the right carriage before the train stops you won't make it.

Southern use it on plenty of driver only routes so passengers have to sort themselves out.

 

[09065]

I think you are creating a problem that doesn't exist. Having 7 cars of 8 with the doors open, or whatever, has got to be an improvement on 4 from 8, however good the announcements are...

I got to agree, or are we going to be giving complementary cotton wool with every ticket purchased?

 

[Goldfish62]

That is the plan to the best of my knowledge. They are fitting the balises to 168 stations on SWT's network - which I suspect (without counting) covers roughly everywhere except the West of England route.

There's a detailed description of how it works here: http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/04/12/being-selective/

The article indicates how I thought it would work, but for which I was berated on this forum as not knowing what I was talking about. The article states that the system will release carriage doors as and when they are detected as being on the platform, irrespective of where the train is brought to a halt at the platform. Thus if a 10 coach train stopped short with only 4 coaches on an 8 coach platform then only the doors on the those 4 coaches would release.

This is counter to what other posts said - namely that it's a passive system pre-programmed with the number of carriages on which the doors are to be released at each platform assuming the train stops in the correct location. In the above example the doors of 8 coaches would release even though 4 of them were not on the platform, meaning that the guard would still have to check that the correct number of carriages were on the platform before releasing the doors.

 

[Matt Taylor]

What about people in the wrong place on the train? Or is the assumption that they won't be able to make it though during the stop and will be overcarried? What happens if passengers with lots of luggage board the wrong coach or the train is too busy for people to get through?

Tonight I had a full and standing 10 car due to the cancellation of previous service in the middle of the evening peak. SDO at 3 of the first 5 stations yet nobody was overcarried and rather than losing time we actually made up 3 minutes.

The current system is 99% idiot proof, the remaining 1% are the idiots who are a danger to themselves and those around them at any given time.

 

[Monty]

The article indicates how I thought it would work, but for which I was berated on this forum as not knowing what I was talking about. The article states that the system will release carriage doors as and when they are detected as being on the platform, irrespective of where the train is brought to a halt at the platform. Thus if a 10 coach train stopped short with only 4 coaches on an 8 coach platform then only the doors on the those 4 coaches would release.

This is counter to what other posts said - namely that it's a passive system pre-programmed with the number of carriages on which the doors are to be released at each platform assuming the train stops in the correct location. In the above example the doors of 8 coaches would release even though 4 of them were not on the platform, meaning that the guard would still have to check that the correct number of carriages were on the platform before releasing the doors.

The Class 458/5s will use this system of ASDO, as the train passes over the track beacons it (the train) will count how many coaches it will need to open. So as you said if the train stops short it will only release a certain number of doors. Though this can work both ways, overshoot and you could have a full door release.

The Desiros will use a slightly different system that does indeed use a database, as the unit(s) pass over the beacon the train will work out what station it's about to call at and refer to the database on how many doors it should release.

 

[Goldfish62]

I got to agree, or are we going to be giving complementary cotton wool with every ticket purchased?

Well said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Class 458/5s will use this system of ASDO, as the train passes over the track beacons it (the train) will count how many coaches it will need to open. So as you said if the train stops short it will only release a certain number of doors. Though this can work both ways, overshoot and you could have a full door release.

The Desiros will use a slightly different system that does indeed use a database, as the unit(s) pass over the beacon the train will work out what station it's about to call at and refer to the database on how many doors it should release.

With the Desiro system, if a train stops short will the system still prevent the doors which are off the platform from being released, or will it assume the train has stopped in the correct location? if the latter then it would be somewhat less useful than the 458/5 system.

I notice the track beacons are installed at every platform right through to Reading. This would appear to indicate that 458/5s could be used to Reading on occasion, or that the equipment will indeed be used to prevent doors being released on 450s if they stop short.

 

[Monty]

Well said.
With the Desiro system, if a train stops short will the system still prevent the doors which are off the platform from being released, or will it assume the train has stopped in the correct location? if the latter then it would be somewhat less useful than the 458/5 system.

If the train stops short the system will assume the train has stopped in the correct location so the guard will have to vigilant and ensure that the train has stopped in the correct location.