|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on Jun 3, 2009 9:23:27 GMT
for good - or bad measure I have added the peak proportions to show how regular commuting can change the potential service pattern at those times: - Station | Off Peak | Peak | Bromley South | 218% | 181% | St Mary Cray | 44% | 51% | Swanley | 42% | 41% | Farningham Road | 5% | 8% | Longfield | 16% | 16% | Meopham | 8% | 11% | Sole Street | 2% | 4% | Rochester | 45% | 13% | Chatham | 100% | 100% | Gillingham | 80% | 65% | Rainham | 46% | 65% | Newington | 4% | 5% | Sittingbourne | 70% | 62% | Teynham | 5% | 5% | Faversham | 47% | 90% | Whitstable | 25% | 25% | Chestfield & Swalecliffe | 3% | 7% | Herne Bay | 23% | 28% | Birchington-On-Sea | 7% | 10% | Westgate-On-Sea | 5% | 8% | Margate | 38% | 12% | Broadstairs | 27% | 12% | Dumpton Park | 2% | 1% | Ramsgate | 40% | 27% |
This actually demonstrates that the off peak service has a higher proportion of long distance passengers than in the peaks. In this route's case the vast majority of commuters' journeys are from Medway and the residue largely decline by Faversham. This suggests that, to some extent, this station acts as an East Kent railhead with passengers using cars to that point. As the area is largely rural it may also indicate passengers from villages without railway stations. Moves away from the old Southern Railway practice of stopping faster trains at smaller stations at longer distances from London during the capital's peak hours may in fact ease the well known parking volumes at Faversham and avoid any costs involved in having to potentially extend the car park. Peak hour service patterns now seem to indicate that peak hour services should be realigned into two sub groups one terminating at Rainham and one to Thanet (possibly doubling the off-peak faster services not stopping at Medway stations and thus generating faster journey times to East Kent and the semi fast ones that would with the residue being fast services going as far as Medway only). I'll now wait for a lot of criticism.... Yours sincerely O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
|
Post by greenicing on Jun 3, 2009 11:56:06 GMT
Thank you for all that information
Faversham does benefit from a council car park in front of the station as well as its own cark park behind, although both of these are often full after the rush hour. It also has good links to the Thanet Way, the A2 and M2 - there are not the same traffic jams one often finds on Pin Hill (the road one has to drive on leaving Canterbury E). Also, as trains split at Faversham, there two chances to the journey to be spoiled with crews being out of place etc.
Bekesbourne is my closest station but I would be reluctant to leave my car there, or at any village station all day long; they are generally unmanned lonely locations that would be extremely attractive to vandals and thieves.
I have often wondered at the lack of imagination shown in the timetable, especially when compared to elsewhere in the country, but have always supposed that this was due to a lack of passing places and conjestion as one nears London.
|
|
Neil
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Neil on Jun 3, 2009 12:08:41 GMT
Thank you for all that information My thanks too. Very interesting On your Birchington point Mr Bulleid I'd guess one of the reasons for all trains stopping there is that it's not that far from Westgate-on-Sea so could be seen to be covering for two stations as Westgate is one that trains whizz through at times I understand that still wouldn't bring the figures up that much but, as you have indicated, there has to be a balance between recognising local issues and providing the optimum service based purely on numbers
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on Jun 3, 2009 14:39:16 GMT
So that those who use the Tonbridge route do not feel left out - here are the proportions on the route to Hastings and Dover Priory using Tonbridge as the marker - in the same way as Chatham was. Station | Off Peak | Peak | Orpington | 129% | 123% | Chelsfield | 13% | 29% | Knockholt | 5% | 7% | Dunton Green | 1% | 3% | Sevenoaks | 99% | 95% | Hildenborough | 8% | 16% | Tonbridge | 100% | 100% | High Brooms | 22% | 17% | Tunbridge Wells | 97% | 88% | Frant | 2% | 3% | Wadhurst | 11% | 10% | Stonegate | 4% | 4% | Etchingham | 5% | 6% | Robertsbridge | 6% | 6% | Battle | 18% | 11% | Crowhurst | 1% | 1% | West St Leonards | 3% | 1% | St Leonards Warrior Square | 28% | 7% | Hastings | 74% | 32% | Paddock Wood | 26% | 29% | Marden | 5% | 7% | Staplehurst | 23% | 23% | Headcorn | 15% | 16% | Pluckley | 2% | 3% | Ashford | 81% | 54% | Westenhanger | 2% | 1% | Sandling | 4% | 3% | Folkestone West | 6% | 4% | Folkestone Central | 32% | 15% | Dover Priory | 32% | 10% |
In my opinion the off-peak service should be (assuming ChavLine trains operate): - 2tph to Sevenoaks, Tonbridge then 1tph Tunbridge Wells, Battle, St Leonards Warrior Square, Hastings - and - 1tph Paddock Wood, Staplehurst, Headcorn, Ashford then stations to Dover Priory. 2tph Orpington, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge then 1tph all stations to Hastings - and - 1tph all stations to Ashford. 1tph Orpington, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, Ashford, Folkestone Central, Dover Priory. 1tph to Orpington then all stations to Tonbridge. Same thinking as for the Chatham line but it continues fast connections from East Kent via Waterloo, allows Metro services to be self contained within the TfL boundaries with better longer distance connections and better equates services to other stations to provide opportunites for product development to improve loadings. I can now almost hear the wroth of those living in the area Yours sincerely O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
|
Post by genehuntisking on Jun 4, 2009 8:28:25 GMT
I asgree with much of the sentiment expressed by RT above. I am doubtful that his comment on Dunton Green will be fulfilled! Yes there is to be an enormous housing estate but as the line between Orpington and Sevenoaks is currently running at maximium tph, where does RT find the space to put additional stopping services at DG? Of course nothing is impossible, but I doubt that extra services from DG could be included without some detriment to current services. There is already disquiet that Sevenoaks will bear the brunt of extra passengers from DG; even more so if a suitable car park facility is not built with the new development. With Sevenoaks Station area already looking like a concrete jungle, I have doubts that planners will allow another jungle at DG! This development is probably two years hence but I doubt that its consequences have yet reached Fraggle Rock! HOGW On the contrary, the development at Dunton Green is known about by the train planning people at Friars Bridge Court and is the whole reason for two trains per hour off peak from the December 2009 timetable. It is only off peak that there will be additional trains, as stated the line capacity is full during the peaks already. In my opinion additional capacity from the Sevenoaks/Dunton Green area could be provided by having peak trains that call all stations Sevenoaks to Orpington then Grove Park and London. Of course this is nothing new, having been part of the 1986 timetable, which has gradually been whittled down. From memory the last remnant of the original 1986 timetable is 17.14 Cannon St - Sevenoaks which doesn't call at Elmstead Woods or Chislehurst, and has a corresponding Orpington slow (17.22) following it. All the rest of the Sevenoaks trains have had additional stops put in to allow the corresponding Orpington trains to be cut out completely. This was mainly done in the early 1990s recession. I have a suspicion that 17.14 Cannon St may now call Elmstead Woods and Chislehurst, but this is only in the last year or so if it does. The Gene Genie
|
|
|
Post by Richard Trevithick on Jun 4, 2009 10:20:08 GMT
My Dearest OVS, I'll not even begin to pretend I understand your numbers and what conclusions can be drawn from them, other than certain stations are a lot busier than others! However, as far as Longfield & Meopham are concerned, they are 16% and 8% respectively, which at a wild guess of 100 people getting off at Chavham, must be in the ballpark of an average dozen people each between the 2 stations. An off peak return ticket is ~£10 from Meopham (~£9 from Longfield), so 24 lots of that (assuming all passengers have tickets!) is an additional £240 revenue per train. I would not consider this insignificant! There is already enough slack in the timetable to include these services without adjusting the total timing of the journey, so there should be no change in total journey time for those living in the Medway towns and beyond. As for costs, last year I worked out that by drawing constant full power (an impossibility as the power consumption tails off as the train speeds up), a typical 4-car unit will cost approximately £50/hr based on domestic rates. Let's add 50% to that for the cost hikes, so we're now looking at £75/hr as the impossible-worst-case electricity consumption, or £1.25/minute. It will take approximately 90 seconds for the train to reach 75mph. So that's an additional £1.88 of electricity per unit per station, or £3.76 for both of them. If it's an 8 car, this will obviously be doubled. So at worse (£7.52), a little over 3% of the additional revenue generated by these additional 2 stops will be lost in "fuel" consumption. I suppose we could factor in a few pennies in brake pad wear too. Now moving on to the statistics. Below is a little table that I've created: Town | % | Population | Population Source | Chatham | 100% | 88-108,000 | various sources | Swanley | 42% | 21,000 | swanleytowncouncil.gov.uk | Longfield | 16% | 5,000 | kentparishes.gov.uk | Meopham | 8% | 9,500 | meopham.org |
The population of Chatham is unclear as various sources state it being from between 88,000 to 108,000. If we go midway at 98,000, I'm sure we won't be too far wrong. It is also worth noting that Chatham is served by the North Kent Line too, so the base of 100% that we are working on isn't necessarily exclusive to the mainline services to Victoria (unless OVS can confirm otherwise). Meopham has a shade under 10% of the population of Chatham, and has a shade under 10% of the footfall. Therefore my interpretation of the numbers is passenger usage is directly proportional to the bigger station a little further down the line. Longfield has 5% of the population of Chatham, yet proportionally it has THREE TIMES the number of passengers. After having looked at some satellite images, my medium confirms that Longfield has a huge station car park. Being only 6 road miles from the centre of Gravesend (and Meopham being 4 miles from Gravesend, but with a smaller car park), it is highly likely that there are an increasing number of passengers living in and around the Gravesend area who are driving to these 2 stations for a quicker service to London than is available from Gravesend. The off-peak journey from Longfield is 10 minutes quicker than from Gravesend and is slightly cheaper. There is also the psychological factor too where the train is moving faster and stopping at less stations which makes the journey feel faster. Back to my previous post, I must say that I still tend to broadly disagree. whilst I 100% accept the fact that fast services are necessary and have a place on the network, I believe that more stopping services are required. The information above suggests that people are commuting to stations (and are indeed proportionally busier than their larger neighbours), and this growth should be encouraged, not stunted for what could broadly be considered the "snob factor" of a "fast" service for the longer distance commuters. A few additional stops here and there at worthwhile stations (such as Longfield & Meopham) are not going to drastically affect the journey time of other passengers. Especially during recession, getting more people to use public transport is a must. It could also be argued that if more people use public transport, then next years fare rises won't need to be as steep as they have been as they'll effectively be subsidising existing passengers tickets. On this occasion, I do believe that SET have done the right thing. Now they just need to work on revenue protection and stamp down on the rife ticketless travel AND antisocial behaviour, which will generate even more revenue! Not only from more money in the fares box, but once it hits the media that the local train company is trying to stop the troublesome "yoof" from mugging/assulting/being rude to normal passengers, and also prevents them from playing loud tinny music/putting feet on seats/vandalising the trains, people will feel safer and be more willing to let the train take the strain instead of driving everywhere in the SAFETY and COMFORT of their cars. Unfortunately, the bean counters who run the modern railway will prevent this claiming it'll cost too much! Oh well, we can't win 'em all! Oh, and as ever, pipped to the post by the good Mr Hunt, this time regarding Dunton Green! Excellent post, Sir, much more detailed than I would have been able to manage anyway! RT
|
|
|
Post by Richard Trevithick on Jun 4, 2009 13:08:31 GMT
From memory the last remnant of the original 1986 timetable is 17.14 Cannon St - Sevenoaks which doesn't call at Elmstead Woods or Chislehurst, and has a corresponding Orpington slow (17.22) following it. All the rest of the Sevenoaks trains have had additional stops put in to allow the corresponding Orpington trains to be cut out completely. This was mainly done in the early 1990s recession. I have a suspicion that 17.14 Cannon St may now call Elmstead Woods and Chislehurst, but this is only in the last year or so if it does. My medium has just checked the NR website. The 17:14 runs fast from London Bridge to Grove Park and then all stations to Orpington, not Sevenoaks. 17:14 London Cannon Street 17:17 17:18 London Bridge 17:32 17:33 Grove Park 17:35 17:35 Elmstead Woods 17:38 17:38 Chislehurst 17:43 17:43 Petts Wood 17:46 Orpington RT
|
|
Duvel
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by Duvel on Jun 4, 2009 15:07:14 GMT
Now they just need to work on revenue protection and stamp down on the rife ticketless travel AND antisocial behaviour, which will generate even more revenue! Not only from more money in the fares box, but once it hits the media that the local train company is trying to stop the troublesome "yoof" from mugging/assulting/being rude to normal passengers, and also prevents them from playing loud tinny music/putting feet on seats/vandalising the trains, people will feel safer and be more willing to let the train take the strain instead of driving everywhere in the SAFETY and COMFORT of their cars. Unfortunately, the bean counters who run the modern railway will prevent this claiming it'll cost too much! Oh well, we can't win 'em all! A post over on "Railchat", the railway employee's forum, suggests that Southeastern are reducing their efforts to combat anti-social behaviour and crime. Post at: www.railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20129Message Board Index at: www.railchat.co.uk/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on Jun 4, 2009 15:15:33 GMT
My Dear Mr Trevithick,
Your notes are very interesting and I have read them several times.
Can we agree on a couple of things? 1) Dynamics that drive peak hour travel are totally different to those driving off-peak purchases. 2)The imposition of Longfield and Meopham stops were originated in the SCL2 document issued on 29th April 2005 - before GoVex gained the franchise. (GoVex did negotiate a change to split the Route I2 service into another semi-fast with a stopping service to Gillingham following 6mins later from Victoria.)
The Chatham off peak service is currently composed of three distinct service groups, Fast Victoria, Slow Victoria and North Kent via Dartford. The figures have had the North Kent services removed as they are not part of the equation. Peak services have Blackfriars and Cannon Street services over the Swanley/Rochester route included as they are part of the services at that time.
There is no corralation between urban area size and numbers of people who will use the local station to travel by train. If there was then Virgin would be stopping London - Birmingham services at Wembley Central, Harrow and Wealdstone, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Rugby, Berkeswell and Adderley Park. The objective that Virgin has is the old rail business guidance of "concentration on key markets" - stop at the places that provide the bulk of potential income (pareto) and reduce the travel time as much as possible. Stop at more places then you may pick up a few more passengers but may lose some to competition because of extended journey times. Chatham isn't a figure related to Chatham's population as there are people who walk or catch a bus from Rochester to catch the faster trains - the fare is the same.
There is also no direct corralation between the total numbers wishing to travel between A and B and the number of services provided. This is a fact of life - if there was then the service between Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading (shadowed by the M25) would be very frequent and it is presently, to all intent and purpose, non existant. How many people from Kent and Medway use Gatwick Airport for business and leisure - and how many direct trains operate? The DfT (who started the Longfield and Meopham issue) say none because of operational issues at Redhill. Reading Line services use platform 1 at Redhill and there is room to build a platform 4 to allow Kent services to do the same. Has anyone seen a cost/benefit analysis with a view to increasing income and modal change?
Both Longfield and Meopham have large car parks but beware of satellite images for use patterns as they may have been taken at weekends. Longfield is full between peaks during the week and Meopham is not. Longfield has increased its patronage by 7% over the last year and Meopham by 6%. This isn't from passengers using cars, one is full by end of the morning peak and the other isn't full at all. There are two further considerations: - 1) Ebbsfleet is going to open shortly and this will be part of the Gravesend urban area with fast ChavLine trains to "London". 2) Chatham also has attracted more passengers - 5%, Sittingbourne - 6% and Faversham - 5%. (there has been general rail business growth)
If GoVex stops more off-peak trains (or even if they lower fares) then there is no guarantee that there will be more passengers being carried. Frequency is a variable but so is speed. You may gain one or two extra passengers at those stations but lose them at others because the perceived or actual slower service may invoke a modal change. If GoVex could stop trains at extra stations without increasing journey times then the existing slack should be taken out first.
Passengers travelling longer journeys pay less per mile but do pay more per journey so you do not want to lose those when taking a few extra passengers paying a lower fare. as I said before it is very much like a spreadsheet with cells linked by formulae, change one and the others will also change.
I do agree with you on the subject of Dunton Green and it is possible that more passengers will result - but equally they may simply drive along Rye Lane to Otford for Victoria, neither we nor GoVex really know at present.
My best wishes to you in this very interesting dialogue.
O.V.S.
|
|
|
Post by chapelwood on Jun 4, 2009 15:49:52 GMT
Just to add a bit more context for Longfield. While the parish population is around 5000, for Longfield and New Barn, the station also serves Hartley (6000) and New Ash Green (6500). Actually, it also serves Fawkham, but that has a very small population, though until around 1961 the station was named Fawkham for Longfield and Hartley. The station car park is regularly full or nearly so, but there is a large private car park immediately north of the station which is mainly used by rail passengers, but which does have spare space. Indeed, an access ramp has just been provided from this car park to the up platform. The DfT would have reduced the offpeak service on the Victoria - Chatham line to 2 trains per hour, one making all the stops of the current stopping service, and the other calling at Bromley South, Longfield, Meopham, and Rochester. Fortunately Southeastern found this too drastic, and will keep 2 fast trains per hour, though with the additional Longfield and Chatham stops. In my opinion the advantages for Longfield and Meopham do out weigh the disadvantage to longer distance passengers in having a slightly increased journey time. I don't think the alternative, for Longfield and Meopham, of only having one train per hour, would have been acceptable. These two stations are after all much busier than Farningham Road, Sole Street, Newington or Teynham. We wait to see how many passengers from Medway and beyond will choose to use the new St Pancras trains rather than those on the classic route. Chapelwood
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on Jun 4, 2009 16:18:34 GMT
...but if GoVex had used some common sense and run the stopping service very close to the semi fast Victoria departure (there are no longer any fast services via Chatham) and not stopped the parallel semi fast at Longfield and Meopham then it is more likely that the use at those stations would have been little affected and the bad feeling that I detect from longer distance passengers could have been avoided by not stopping the other train.
Given that the off-peak Chavline trains are actually slower to "London" than off-peak services worked by the Southern's 4Ceps 30 years ago then the case should be for faster classic services at the lower prices.
There are of course other instances of the same poor planning but this one has come to the fore.
Yours sincerely O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
|
Post by jumpedup on Jun 18, 2009 11:44:42 GMT
First 'official' test before the preview service began - see news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106398.stm which has a clip from BBC Breakfast with some 'misleading' claims fed from the southeastern PR people, no doubt
|
|
|
Post by NoOnions on Jun 18, 2009 13:08:32 GMT
Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, who arrived at St Pancras to join the train on Thursday morning, said the high-speed trains were the "future of the railways".
"Here we have a 140mph train replacing Victorian infrastructure which can't cope with the pressures.
"It will offer the best service in to London from the Kent coast and the Medway towns. It's a great day for passengers and a great day for UK railways."
If by 'best service' from Medway to London (City in my case) he means a much longer and expensive journey to work, then it's a winner for me. Why would I want to go to Cannon Street direct, when I could go via St. P and the tube?!
|
|
|
Post by sibodkent on Jun 19, 2009 11:09:15 GMT
Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, who arrived at St Pancras to join the train on Thursday morning, said the high-speed trains were the "future of the railways".
"Here we have a 140mph train replacing Victorian infrastructure which can't cope with the pressures.
"It will offer the best service in to London from the Kent coast and the Medway towns. It's a great day for passengers and a great day for UK railways." If by 'best service' from Medway to London (City in my case) he means a much longer and expensive journey to work, then it's a winner for me. Why would I want to go to Cannon Street direct, when I could go via St. P and the tube?! The Beeb seem to have fallen for the PR guff. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8107283.stmNote that they don't quote the near 25% increase for North kent users, that might be as much as 35% when the service launches proper. Nor do they make any mention of the fact that most commuters will be going to jobs near their existing stations, such as Canon Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross, so will not benefit from faster trains in the long run anyway!
|
|
|
Post by moggycat on Jun 25, 2009 14:22:33 GMT
Hello everyone, hope you are all well and enjoying this excellent commuting weather?
I raised a few questions with SE about the forthcoming high speed preview and also reinstatement of our 17.44 train to Folkestone from december (yet again it will just continue from Ashford - Canterbury from Dec according to the tmetable). I have a sense of deja-vu on this ast issue and am tired of having to fight for a reasonable service to travel home from work.
Here is my reply from them:
Thank you for your website comment dated 15 June. Firstly, I am sorry that you are unhappy with the changes to the timetable that will take affect from December this year. More specifically, your evening journeys from Cannon Street to Folkestone. We realise that whenever there is a timetable change that not all the changes will please everyone. Although I can't promise an immediate improvement to the stopping pattern of the 17.45 train you mentioned, but I will certainly make our timetable planners aware of the concerns you've raised. More generally, Our timetable changes are a result of a great deal of planning and fulfil the criteria set by the Department for Transport. During this planning, we also consult Transport for London as well as a number of independent passenger user groups, to ensure that we cater for the needs of most of our passengers as well as possible. To produce a technically workable timetable is obviously fundamental for the service to run at all, but we would have to admit that the wishes of a number of our customers are not met. Inevitably, the outcome is, of necessity, a compromise between the various - and sometimes conflicting - demands of our customers and what we are practicably able to provide in terms of rolling stock, pathways and crewing resources. If you do hold a London Terminals ticket which is also valid on high speed services, I'm afraid that this wouldn't include Liverpool Street. Our London Terminals are Victoria, Waterloo East, Cannon Street, London Bridge, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. Obviously paying a premium will allow you to travel on high speed services, but only as far as St Pancras. Stratford International is roughly 400 metres from Stratford mainline station, and the construction work around the current site is in preparation for the 2012 Olympics. Unfortunately, as Stratford International isn't due to open until December this year, we won't be stopping the preview services there (although I realise that this would be of immense benefit to passengers like yourself who would like the opportunity to try out their future journeys to the station). Work is underway to construct a DLR link to Stratford mainline station which won't be due for completion until at least 2010. Although I realise that not all changes will be pleasing to everyone, I hope you can appreciate that this is an exciting time as the UK’s first ever high speed service will be introduced. Along with these services, and the new timetable for mainline and metro services, we believe that this will support the regeneration of the Thames Gateway, Ashford and East Kent areas. Thank you once more for raising these issues with us. Yours sincerely David Geraghty Customer Relations Officer Southeastern
I do hope something can be done about 17.44. Much as I would be pleased to consider the HS2 it will just not be worth it.
I said I thought the preview should be free to those of us who have an expensive season ticket. This would (in my opinion) be a small incentive to get people interested. This point was not answered.
I had asked if they were doing a preview to Stratford (note the reply that the station is still under construction), if I could then use my ticket on overground Stratford - Liv St . Interesting that 'their' London Terminals do not include Liv St - so I hope they reword the season tickets to say 'Southeastern London terminals' - mine currently says 'London terminals' and in my book Liverpool St is just that.
So I regret to say that any time saved - (37 mins Ashford to 'London') but the rest of the journey will be slow - will be spent getting from St P back into the City - AND - they expect me to pay extra for the HS fare and whatever method it takes to get to the City. This is just not worth it.
So I am left with a slow stopping train home from Dec which only goes as far as Ashford (currently it is fast - just 4 stops to Ashford and then contnues to Folkestone); or have to wait until 18.10. This is just not realistic, and also just what we all feared would happen.
Is there anything I can do? I have been raising these issues with them for years now.
|
|