|
|
Post by chapelwood on May 5, 2009 12:27:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jumpedup on May 5, 2009 13:14:41 GMT
So, in summary we can't do anything else about 'Classic' services (even after London Bridge is opened up) and will need to get all StP services with 12 cars not 6 in the peak. I'm sure there are some on this board who will think this proposal is environmentally unsound. After all, the proposed 6-car services coming in in December will be empty as it is...
Possible option of (peak only?) StP service to Maidstone West
Better read the other 180 pages now! Or better still, get back to work!
|
|
|
|
Post by trainplanner on May 6, 2009 6:37:34 GMT
Jumpedup, i can confirm your assumption having read through the entire document!
IT would appear that infrastructure enhancement is limited to phases one and two of the east kent resignalling project (and nothing more) and the proposed timetable changes revolve around some additional services between swanley and victoria, and lots of additional services on the High speed line.
However network rail even admit that the take up of these services is unknown, but they then go on to suggest that the only way to provide significant new capacity is to run more trains on the high speed lines.
They fail to address the problem of the lengths of platforms at victoria, they also fail to address other capacity issues such as a second bridge over the medway and a newly located rochester station, (which would permit an increase in traffic through the medway underground) or the provision of additional tracks between Swanley and victoria. All i suspect because running longer trains on the High speed line is cheaper as only trains need to be bought and NR won't pay for them!
Sadly your comment appears to have hit the nail on the head. If only they were prepared to invest money in this route and not just pander to the government on HS1.
How have peoples commutes been?
Regards
TP
|
|
|
|
Post by chapelwood on May 6, 2009 7:48:33 GMT
The document does not go in for flights of fantasy that no-one's going to pay for. However, it does seem to miss some opportunities. Why, for example, can Cannon Street only cope with 22 trains per hour, when not so long ago it managed 30?Some of this can be explained by the loss, with Thameslink, of the empty stock bolt hole via Metropolitan Junction and Blackfriars Reversing Siding, and by changes in driving standards. But one version of the Thameslink track layout shows Cannon Street trains moving to platforms 2-4 at London Bridge, with platform 1 abandoned. If Cannon Street trains had 4 London Bridge platforms I see no reason why Cannon Street should not be able to deal with as many trains as Charing Cross.
It suggests a couple of extra trains per hour from Kent into Victoria (mainly to deal with crowding between Bromley South and Victoria) but then dismisses all the starting points NR can think of - Medway because of congestion between Rochester Bridge Junction and Gillingham, Maidstone because of platform lengths, Swanley because there's no reversing siding, and reversing in the station would cause congestion. It even toys with reversing trains on the otherwise useless line at Fawkham Junction. But surely a much better plan would be to run from Sevenoaks to Victoria, calling at Swanley, St Mary Cray, and Bromley South - giving some relief for Sevenoaks without adding to trains on the congested Sevenoaks to Orpington stretch.
Another idea would be to go back to the old arrangement of splitting Maidstone route trains into fast and slow portions at Swanley. 12 cars could run from Victoria to Bromley South and Swanley. The front 6 or 8 could call at West Malling (for Kings Hill, Maidstone East and stations to Ashford; the rear portion could call at all stations (including Eynsford and Shoreham) to Maidstone East (or Sevenoaks), giving greater capacity from Victoria, and faster journeys to West Malling, Maidstone and Bearsted, as well as to Eynsford and Shoreham.
Any other suggestions?
Chapelwood
|
|
|
|
Post by heofgreatwisdom on May 6, 2009 19:06:09 GMT
How about giving HS1 to Sustrans and reverting back to square one plus one minus one!!!
HOGW (after a damn good holiday in Portugal)
|
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on May 9, 2009 15:17:44 GMT
The RUS has two sets on diagrams - pages 27 and 58 showing the number of trains arriving at various London terminals between 08.00 and 08.59 - high peak. The present service is shown as: - 9 - Blackfriars
25 - Cannon Street
28 - Charing Cross
0 - St Pancras
17 - Victoria
and the December 2009 version as: - 8 - Blackfriars
25 - Cannon Street
29 - Charing Cross
0 - St Pancras
18 - Victoria
Now it is often said by Notwork Rail that there cannot be any more trains squeezed into the central rail network as it would damage both timekeeping and resilience of the service - yet here is an example where this is planned to happen. Are we to believe that GoVex's December 2009 timetable will now fail because of two factors: - - The overcrowding resulting from the imposition of unwanted "high cost" (rather than "high speed") services to North London and cancellation of trains that go where passengers also want to go.
- Poorer timekeeping of the remaining classic trains because extra ones are going to be forced through London Bridge.
...and why is it that Charing Cross seems to be able to handle 29 arrivals in 6 platforms after passing a single up line from Borough Market Jn to Metropolitan Jn but Cannon Street cannot deal with more than 25 with 7 platforms? I note chapelwood's posting about Thameslink but if Charing Cross can push back the 29 trains through London Bridge then why not Cannon Street? Yours sincerely O.V.S.Bulleid |
|
paolo
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by paolo on May 11, 2009 9:26:55 GMT
Having checked the replacement for my morning journey from Staplehurst, which is currently 0832, arriving at 0944, it will be the 0820 arriving at 0925, so that will be 10 minutes quicker.
|
|
|
|
Post by chapelwood on May 11, 2009 9:40:59 GMT
...and why is it that Charing Cross seems to be able to handle 29 arrivals in 6 platforms after passing a single up line from Borough Market Jn to Metropolitan Jn but Cannon Street cannot deal with more than 25 with 7 platforms? I note chapelwood's posting about Thameslink but if Charing Cross can push back the 29 trains through London Bridge then why not Cannon Street? London Bridge has 4 lines (though currently only 3 platforms) for Charing Cross trains, but only 3 lines (and platforms) for Cannon Street. At present some empty stock trains can run to/from Cannon Street via the Metropolitan Junction and Blackfriars Reversing Siding bolthole. When the Thameslink Project cuts this off the capacity of Cannon Street will be limited by the ability to get trains out in the morning peak, or in in the evening peak. 28 or 29 trains an hour might be possible if none of the counter-peak trains called at London Bridge (e.g. if they all ran empty stock). But if the plan is for Thameslink to use platforms 5 and 6 at London Bridge, Charing Cross trains to use new platforms 7-10, then Cannon Street ought to have 4 platforms, 1-4, in which case it really ought to be possible to get 28 or 29 trains into and out of Cannon Street in an hour. There is also a need to watch capacity between New Cross and St Johns, and at Lewisham, which are also close to capacity. Chapelwood |
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on May 11, 2009 11:37:24 GMT
Dear chapelwood
Yes, I'm sorry, I took my comments from your previous posting about platform 1 at London Bridge and then relating that back to Cannon Street having more platforms than Charing Cross so potentially not having been pushed to actual capacity.
St Johns and Lewisham, to my mind, have never really been tackled. I'm probably the last one to talk about change after my postings regarding the routing of large numbers of passengers via North London but...
Logic suggests that as few crossing moves as possible should be made at St Johns and Lewisham - and this should include routing metro services to avoid this.
I know I'm going to get into deep water on this one but trains via St Johns platforms should tend to run via Lewisham and then via Blackheath or via Parks Bridge to Hither Green. Trains from Nunhead should tend to run via Lewisham and then Ladywell or Hither Green. Continuing to route Victoria - Dartford services via Bexleyheath simply extends the current problem which could be solved by running via the Dartford Loop. Notwork Rail are thinking about migrating some mainline services away from Cannon Street - so why not some metro services? The RUS suggests any mainline expansion should be to route more people to North London so why not reroute some metro passengers to increase reliability of existing services?
Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
|
|
Post by chapelwood on May 12, 2009 21:45:27 GMT
Dear Mr Bulleid
You are correct in identifying St Johns and Lewisham as being a problem area. In fact in the 1970s the problems of Borough Market, Spa Road, and Southwark Park were largely transferred to St Johns, Lewisham, and Parks Bridge. The Thameslink Programme won't improve matters, though it probably won't make them worse, as the Tanners Hill spur will be doubled, so it looks as though all Charing Cross to Lewisham trains will go this way (and there is a need for Charing Cross - Bexleyheath, and Charing Cross - North Kent trains. The latter won't be able to go via Greenwich).
Thameslink to South Eastern via London Bridge trains will have a flying junction at Blue Anchor where they will leave the Croydon route, but will then have to cross to the Cannon Street lines by flat junctions at North Kent East, though they won't conflict with Greenwich route trains.
I agree that there should be Victoria - Lewisham - Sidcup trains (which won't conflict with Cannon Street - Bexleyheath trains at Lewisham), though there's no point in running Victoria - Lewisham - Ladywell trains, as passengers from Victoria, Denmark Hill, etc, to Catford and Beckenham have a more direct service via the Catford Loop.
If the problem of getting empty stock into/out of Cannon Street can be solved then Cannon Street should be able to handle up to 28 trains per hour, and it ought to have main line trains via Tonbridge, and trains to stations between Dartford and Strood.
Chapelwood
|
|
|
|
Post by trainplanner on May 27, 2009 15:15:20 GMT
Building on Chapelwoods earlier posting, he is correct in that the RUS does not go into flights of fancy of things that are unlikely to happen. However there appear to be some things which could be undertaken which may make a difference in developing additional capacity that may help run additional trains.
His suggestion of 12 car trains over maidstone east line would work, and it resolves the NR issues of lack of places to terminate the trains, (as they would terminate at their existing locations) and no journey time increases woudl be required, as i would suggest that the timetable is padded enough as is.
Also at Eynsford (and i suggest it as it is the first station beyond the junction) a pair terminating sidings or loops is created, to permit any additional swanley to bromley south trains to run and have a termini clear of the main line.
Perhaps now is also the time to start to identify how the platforms at victoria will be lengthened to 12 car to add flexibility too.
Is it also worth looking at other services which could split or join to increase capcity, as well as extension of the 4 tracks to sevenoaks from orpington, as well as making sevenoaks station s6 platforms form the current 4??
Peoples thoughts??
TP
|
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on May 28, 2009 11:35:26 GMT
I tend to agree with Chapelwood in that nobody is going to pay for flights of fancy - but to some extent that is the very problem with the RUS - Notwork Rail seems to consider only solutions that use other people's money.
Case one is longer trains - yes but the case is increasingly difficult to make in view of the higher number of coaches that will sit idle for most of the day.
Case two is that only the CTRL can add capacity for additional trains - and that is currently owned by London & Continental and its capacity will almost certainly be consumed by an increase in international services after 2010 when Eurostar's legal monopoly expires. In this Notwork Rail offers no opinion even though it has an effect on the Kent RUS in possibly removing some domestic services by virtue of its future owner's business objectives.
Some money will have to be spent and the lower the better if the fares box has to pay for it - or Notwork Rail can make other use for its own efficiency.
There are two constraints: -
Route Capacity - the number of trains that can be efficiently funnelled along each track.
Terminal Capacity - the number of trains that can be platformed, serviced whilst crossing moves remain workable.
On the other hand if trains are flighted the first travelling as far as possible ahead of others which sequentially peel off to branches then operation becomes more resilient.
The December 2009 draft service does not use the Route Capacity in an intelligent manner. One example is the "four track" route from Shortlands to Blackfriars and Victoria. GoVex has taken extreme care to make the Orpington services an exact 15 minute interval - resulting in only four mainline paths per hour being available. By changing the frequency to 13/17/13/17 minutes 6 mainline services an be accommodated - the number suggested by Notwork Rail as being required for expansion. If the Catford Loop (lower station footfall between Peckham Rye and Shortlands) was treated as the conduit during the 13 minute interval on the Herne Hill route six mainline and two additional metro services could be operated. This requires no capital expenditure but some professionalism at GoVex's timetable department.
Terminal capacity is indeed a real problem and the only "low cost" answer is to remove the cause as far as possible. Of all London terminals Charing Cross is the most congested and cannot be extended to real 12 car operation without some significant expenditure. The shortest "Southern Crossrail" 3rd rail solution of all is available by linking the 190 metres of tracks between Waterloo East and Waterloo Mainline. If that could carry 18tph (the number using SWT's Main Local Lines) a greater number of direct journeys across South London becomes available and Charing Cross would deal with 20tph, some using the Thameslink platforms at London Bridge and tracks to Metropolitan Jn.
Yes there is an issue regarding the Lewisham area but the DfT and GoVex do not do very much to introduce parallel working over the junction by routing Victoria services to the Bexleheath Line instead of the original plan to route them via the Dartford Loop.
Further out the Medway Underground can adequately handle 14tph but GoVex doesn't see any point in providing enough seats by doing so. On the Orpington - Tonbridge stretch it has pretty well used up all capacity at high-peak so needs to find ways to attracting passengers to use direct services to stations closer to where passengers actually live - and a fair proportion of those would find a better service to the Maidstone East line a better deal than driving to Sevenoaks. For Ashford and beyond there is a grave danger that ChavLine trains will not be as successful if costs are higher than classic routings to workplaces as the DfT think they will. If SNCF or DB get their hands on the infrastructure they may well start to apply pressure to actually remove the domestic trains as capacity becomes more profitable for international use as they could start to manupulate paths to make life uncomfortable to GoVex to try and force tham out. If Notwork Rail gain the infrastructure then this may be different - or the same profitable scenario might look attractive to them as well.
If we consider the Southern Crossrail approach as being something less than a flight of fancy - Notwork Rail would be able to remove a number of platforms and increase retail space - then you could have: -
Southern Crossrail 28tph (all metro)
Charing Cross 20tph
Thameslink via London Bridge 8tph (all metro)
Thameslink via Elephant & Castle 16tph (some from the north of London starting/terminating at Herne Hill if no money spent on improving the layout)
Cannon Street 24tph
Victoria 18tph (12 via Herne Hill)
That gives a total of 114tph against 76 shown in the DfT's SLC2.
On the mainline side I recon that the Chatham Line would have 4tph Victoria, 4 tph Cannon St, 2tph Victoria stopping, 2tph Dartford and 2tph North London. On the Tonbridge side there is no extra capacity beyond GoVex's ambition. The Maidstone East route would have 6tph (two of them fast to Borough Green) and Ashford would have two services at high peak from Cannon St via Fawkham Jn and CTRL to increase the diversion of passengers from the Sevenoaks area.
Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Trevithick on May 28, 2009 15:20:06 GMT
My Dear Mr OVS,
As ever, you speak many words of wisdom.
I must comment on the linking of the track between Waterloo East & Mainline though. To be perfectly honest, I really don't see the point. If people wanted to get off at Waterloo in the first place, then they'd do so at W.E. People get off at CX because that's where they want to, presumably because it's more convenient for the continuation of their journey. Why not send some mainline services on this new spur too - why make it exclusively a metro option?
By rebuilding this link, wouldn't it have the negative effect of cutting the main concourse at Waterloo in half? The only way around this would then be to build an overbridge, which would presumably become extremely congested during the peaks.
Surely, if SET trains were to run into Waterloo, wouldn't it make more sense (and be cheaper and less disruptive) to send them up the Catford Loop / Chatham Mainline and then swing a right at Linford St and use the existing ex-Eurostar track?
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by O.V.S.Bulleid on May 28, 2009 15:55:23 GMT
My Dear Mr Trevithick
Many thanks for your notes and hopefully I may be able to clarify my thinking a little further.
There is a point about turning left at Waterloo East. Those passengers who wish to continue by Bakerloo and Northern Lines will opt for Charing Cross as the access is close, whereas at Waterloo there is a long walk to the mainline station and thence into the tube area. These are the 20% or so that do not walk to their destinations (see also below). There are also a fair number of SWT passengers who travel from Waterloo East in a contra peak direction. Waterloo is a very busy terminal from where a relatively high proportion walk to their offices.
Yes the concourse would be changed - perhaps only a pair of platforms in each direction - as with London Bridge. The main gain is that you remove terminal time and keep the rolling stock in revenue use for longer - potentially saving some units as a result of not standing idle for 5 - 10 minutes (with the same on the SWT side). Notwork Rail would probably like to increase retail outlets at Waterloo and quite a lot of space would be made available to this end - as would the potential to improve platform lengths and the layout at the western end of the station. None of this improvement would be available with access from the Linford St end as trains would still terminate.
I think that I have previously expressed a dislike for taking mainline trains from one side of London to the other as this introduces both voltage change issues into a larger rolling stock fleet and importing of delays on one side of London into the other. To my mind DfT would do well to start seriously considering the integration of London Overground to include all metro services operating within the TFL area - leaving services running beyond that boundary to their own service groups with guaranteed paths into the centre where they have to share tracks. GoVex already has 4 tracks from Orpington/Swanley to Charing Cross (after 2015) and moving the operationally poor solution for mainline trains crossing London it might be interesting to look at concentrating all mainline trains at Charing Cross and Cannon Street for all Kent destinations. - leaving the Herne Hill and Catford Loop routes for TfL. A quick count of present and RUS nominated expansion suggests about 24tph mainline services for those termini to deal with. Just a first thought of course - comments very welcome.
There are going to have to be changes and I would suggest that a low cost Crossrail would have wide appeal to Londoners - after all if TfL see ELL trains to Clapham Jn and more frequent Tottenham & Hampstead services being viable then the Waterloo scenario must be a better all round case.
Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid
|
|
