Overcrowding

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Friends

Summer has finally arrived and from I understand air-con is working on nearly half of the coaches that are fitted.

A number of trains each day are now operating short of stock and this prompted me to examine the loadings provided by GoVex. This started me to think about how the 2009 timetable will work on Classic services so I took an initial look at the evening services via Chatham and compared them to the new improved Orpington service. Now I have nothing against passengers using the Orpington services but they do not load as heavily as main-line services: -

____________Victoria______________________Cannon St
Orpington____________Main Line____________Main Line
.....................| 1603 - 8 cars High |
1626 - 8 cars Medium | 1623 - 8 cars High |
1651 - 6 cars Medium | 1642 - 8 cars High | 1644 - 8 cars High
1712 - 6 cars High.. | 1709 - 8 cars High | 1708 - 8 cars High
1735 - 6 cars Medium | 1727 -10 cars High | 1730 -12 cars High
1752 - 8 cars Medium | 1748 -11 cars High | 1752 -12 cars High
1802 - 8 cars High.. | 1804 -11 cars High | 1812 -12 cars High
1821 - 6 cars High.. |
1838 - 6 cars Medium | 1833 -12 cars High | 1846 - 8 cars High
1851 - 6 cars Low
Something is wrong in the use of rollingstock if long distance services are heavily loaded but less than 12 cars whilst shorter distance services are not exactly full but are both more frequent (and thus a poor use of track capacity) and shorter in length.

This really is an afront to Kent passengers who face higher fares (per mile) and the prospect of higher increases because of the limit that GoVex can apply to the Metro services.

Does anyone want the equivilent for the route via Sevenoaks?

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[moggycat]

This is interesting. I would be interested in something similar being done for Cx and CSt to Dover/Ramsgate via Ashford.
The train I use in the morning 06.39 Folk (starts at Dover) - Cannon St is much more overcrowded than it used to be with extra people getting on at Tonbridge and Sevenoaks (not sure why). It is already 12 coaches but packed.

All the trains I catch are fast to Sevenoaks. If I lived there I would be annoyed that all the fast trains are full but I do know that the stopping ones whilst slower have seats available.

I am annoyed (again) that we have to subsidise Ken (now Boris's) residents in places like Orpington - who enjoy relatively cheap fares whilst ours go up way beyond inflation each year and - in my case - the service deteriorates.

I think your suggestion re separating franchising for metro and mainline seems a good one.

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Dear moggycat

Here are the evening departures for the Ashford and Tunbridge Wells main line services against the Metro ones to Orpington and Sevenoaks: -
Via Headcorn____________Via High Brooms___________Metro to Sevenoaks
1600 CX - 4 cars Medium |
1614 CS - 4 cars Medium | 1615 CX - 8 cars Low... | 1616*CX -10 cars Low...
1623 CX - 8 cars High.. | ........................| 1622 CS – 8 cars Low...
1630 CX - 4 cars Medium | ........................| 1643*CX -10 cars Medium
1646 CX - 8 cars High.. | 1650 CX – 8 cars Medium | 1651 CS – 8 cars Low...
........................| 1700 CS – 8 cars High.. | 1705*CX - 8 cars Medium
1713 CX - 8 cars High.. | 1716 CX – 8 cars High.. | 1714 CS – 6 cars Medium
1722 CS -10 cars High.. | 1719 CX -11 cars High.. | 1720*CS – 6 cars High..
........................| ........................| 1727*CX -10 cars Medium
1735 CX -12 cars High.. | 1738 CS -12 cars High.. | 1736 CS – 8 cars High..
1744 CS -10 cars High.. | 1741 CX -10 cars High.. | 1749*CX -10 cars High..
1757 CX -12 cars High.. | 1800 CS -12 cars High.. | 1758 CS – 8 cars High..
1804 CS -12 cars High.. | 1803 CX – 8 cars High.. | 1810*CX – 8 cars Medium
1816 CX – 8 cars High.. | 1825 CS -11 cars High.. | 1816 CS – 8 cars High..
........................| 1829 CX –10 cars High.. | 1833 CX - 8 cars High..
1840 CX -11 cars High.. | 1850 CX – 8 cars High.. | 1848 CS – 8 cars Medium
........................| ........................| 1855 CX - 8 cars Low...
* is a service terminating at Orpington
This suggests that there is some room to add rolling stock to the mainline services and thin out the Metro services by making more of them up to 10 cars (as in BR days). Maybe the Sevenoaks services should be 10 car Weald Networkers and run fast to Orpington whilst removing Sevenoaks stops from some main line trains?

What I might do is to look at the relative loadings of main line and Metro (let's go back to calling them suburban) services to see if there is equitable loadings in total from each London terminal. My guess is that, instead of boosting suburban service frequencies it would be a better use of route capacity to allocate more to main line use to remove the much longer standing times.

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[heofgreatwisdom]

Excuse me but!! Knocking those of us who live within the Metro area and setting one travelling group against another is not what I feel we should be about. If Govia could run 15 car sets then overcrowding would still be around. It is the law of supply and demand. When the Government build more roads it does not diminish the crowds on other routes. It is the old,old story that the South-East is seen as the place to make your fortune and more and more folk will come in for that reason. It ain't gonna get any better. We just have to make the best of a bad job.
HOGW

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Dear heofgreatwisdom

I'm sorry but you seem not to understand what I am saying.

The loadings are those published by GoVex and are not invented by me. The evidence doesn't play main line against suburban but tries to take facts and suggest where GoVex has gone wrong for both sets of passengers.

In total trains departing London terminals are formed of 1,295 coaches.
Coaches noted by GoVex as being in trains marked as "Heavy" number 383 main line and 178 suburban.
Coaches noted by GoVex as being in trains marked as "Medium" number 52 main line and 488 suburban.
Coaches noted by GoVex as being in trains marked as "Low" number 22 main line and 172 suburban.

You may believe the figures or not - but if GoVex is correct then it shows main line trains as being significantly more numerous in the "Heavy" assessment whereas suburban trains are more numerous in the "Medium" level.

This varies by London terminal and during each 30 minutes throughout the evening peak. 30 coaches are assigned to suburban trains operating in "Low" departures between 17.00 and 17.29 from Cannon Street. Almost the same happens at Charing Cross - but between 16.00 and 16.29. From Victoria there are very few suburban services labelled as "Heavy" at all whereas main line services are mostly "Heavy".

As with the Chatham route it might be beneficial to segregate Weald from East Kent services. Many main line trains stopping at Sevenoaks cause overcrowding and removal of that stop would make travel for longer distance passengers more tollerable and Sevenoaks passengers should instead have a better Weald service running non-stop to Orpington. Sevenoaks passengers might not like stops on their trains - but it would make travel much more comfortable in equalising loadings by changing the timetable and making those services a full 10 cars.

Trying to take the suburban passengers side really is more difficult as so many of the trains are shown as less than "Heavy" and those which are are generally operating at less than optimum length.

One fact which we may agree on is that compared to 30 years ago there are 14 less trains in each peak hour - 4 less fast main line, 9 more stopping main line and 19 less suburban services. Suburban services used to have nearly 1,000 seats and now have around 500 - depending how you class "bum-hooks".

Because of a lack of management GoVex has managed to completely fail both main line and suburban passengers and it does seem to me that the services should now be divorced to different franchises.

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[chapelwood]

Jul 25, 2008 21:23:25 GMT O.V.S.Bulleid said:

The loadings are those published by GoVex and are not invented by me. The evidence doesn't play main line against suburban but tries to take facts and suggest where GoVex has gone wrong for both sets of passengers.

It would be helpful if Govex could give more details of what they mean by these categories of low, medium, and high. As I understand it a sliding door train is deemed to be overcrowded if it has more than 135 passengers per 100 seats, or if any passengers have to stand (as opposed to choose to stand) for more than 20 minutes. Some passengers prefer to stand near the front of a train in the morning peak, for a quick exit at Charing Cross or Cannon Street, even if there are seats at the rear of the train. Accordingly, a Metro train may not be deemed to be overcrowded if it has standing passengers say between London Bridge and Chislehurst, while a main line train is overcrowded if it has more passengers than seats on the non-stop journey to or from Sevenoaks. Are Govex assigning these categories of low, medium and high on the basis of this standard of overcrowding, or do highly loaded Metro and Mainline services have comparable numbers of standing passengers? And how do overcrowding standards apply to 376 stock, which was supposed to be designed to accommodate a higher proportion of standing passengers (even if the detailed design fails to accommodate standing passengers in any sort of comfort)?

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Dear chapelwood

Your posting is straight to the point insofar as GoVex seem to have listed their trains as a general guide to passengers as to which services are heavily used and which are lighter. As this is guidance to no set standard that they have advised then I have assumed that it is relative across services.

Much as it seems to show that they are failing to deliver a cost effective service for the fares charged it does show relative use of trains - assuming that they do use a consistent measure in their advice. (...and they have started to weigh trains of course)

There are two documents published on the internet that are a good read to try and understand what is meant by overcrowding: -
www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/mar/congestiontrains/technicaldefinitionofexcessp2790
Which is issued by the DfT and effectively says that there is no real financial disincentive for GoVex to continue operating an overcrowded service.
and
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/201/20107.htm
Which is part of the report by the Parliamentary Select Committee and specifies what they expect of train operators for both main line and suburban services - including the 376 units.

Going back to the GoVex figures I believe that it provides a base on which to understand relative loadings against the number of coaches available to carry passengers. If there is a 10 car train showing "Low" near a 6 car train showing "High" (I think that I have wrongly used the description "Heavy" in previous postings) then there is a mismatch. Passengers holding standard class tickets should not have to stand for more than 20 minutes - on any train. This effectively makes Bromley South (from Victoria and Blackfriars) and Orpington (from London Bridge on services from Charing Cross and Cannon St). It is this fact which indicates that GoVex's planning is "not fit for purpose" - by their own evidence.

Will 2009 sort it out - the quick answer is no if the results given by them are placed into the SLC2 issued by the DfT. It requires some rethinking for all routes but most specifically for main line services which are, without a doubt, more heavily used (per coach) than suburban - and by passengers paying significantly higher fares per mile.

This returns to heofgreatwisdom's notes and my point that I would not wish to divide main line and suburban passengers but would wish for a solution that delivers services that actually meet the rules - for which the DfT admit they do not apply monetary sanctions for not meeting. One of those reviews requires a division between Weald and Kent/Sussex Coast services for best fit on the available infrastructure. If it is the DfT's hope that the ChavLine service will take heat out of the Weald area then I would continue to suggest that they have yet to be disappointed and Sevenoaks passengers will find their trains continuing to become even more overcrowded by Ashford Line passengers resulting in even worse value for money - maybe a 2 - 4 minute longer journey with a seat is better than having to stand for over half an hour (only Sevenoaks passengers would be able to answer that).

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[chapelwood]

Jul 26, 2008 8:31:04 GMT O.V.S.Bulleid said:

Going back to the GoVex figures I believe that it provides a base on which to understand relative loadings against the number of coaches available to carry passengers. If there is a 10 car train showing "Low" near a 6 car train showing "High" (I think that I have wrongly used the description "Heavy" in previous postings) then there is a mismatch. Passengers holding standard class tickets should not have to stand for more than 20 minutes - on any train. This effectively makes Bromley South (from Victoria and Blackfriars) and Orpington (from London Bridge on services from Charing Cross and Cannon St). It is this fact which indicates that GoVex's planning is "not fit for purpose" - by their own evidence.

I would expect to see Metro trains in the shoulder peaks (arriving at London termini before 0800 or after 0915, or leaving before 1700 or after 1800) more lightly loaded than mainline trains at these times, as Metro trains can bounce back and make another peak journey, while a Weald or Kent Coast train leaving a London terminus after 1600 can hardly get back to make another outward journey until after 1900. But I would expect to see best use made of available paths by running high peak trains at the maximum length that platforms allow, with frequencies and stopping patterns that ensure that they are fully loaded..
While ensuring that all high peak trains are fully but not overloaded, more use could be made of bouncing trains back from stations which have turn-round facilities - Kent House, Beckenham Junction, Bellingham, Sidcup, and Plumstead for example, to enable the train to make another peak journey as soon as possible. At present too many trains trundle along three parts empty when they could go back and pick up another load. I'd even suggest running two or three trains out of Charing Cross with a full load for Hither Green and Grove Park, running them down to Bromley North to turn back, and getting them back to Charing Cross more quickly than turning them back at Orpington, let alone Sevenoaks.

[Richard Trevithick]

Jul 26, 2008 10:25:56 GMT chapelwood said:

I would expect to see Metro trains in the shoulder peaks (arriving at London termini before 0800 or after 0915, or leaving before 1700 or after 1800) more lightly loaded than mainline trains at these times, as Metro trains can bounce back and make another peak journey, while a Weald or Kent Coast train leaving a London terminus after 1600 can hardly get back to make another outward journey until after 1900. But I would expect to see best use made of available paths by running high peak trains at the maximum length that platforms allow, with frequencies and stopping patterns that ensure that they are fully loaded..

Dear Chapelwood,

I have both Metro and Mainline drivers who regularly attend my driver seances. The Metro boys are adamant that it's their services that are by far the worst overcrowded. This is reasonable claim on the grounds that they are covering a highly densely populated area.

When 'borrowing' a body for the day, I have had opportunity on several recent occasions to experience rush hour trains on both Mainline and Metro. Whilst Mainline services are indeed crowded, they usually have much more personal space per passenger than you get on Metro. Often suburban services get so overcrowded that the doors won't close properly!

Using full length trains would indeed be an ideal solution. Unfortunately, there is a chronic shortage of rolling stock in the South East, with no plans to procure any more (other than HS1 units). Even when they are up and running, there will still be chronic overcrowding on existing services. We need either a TOC or a government that is willing to shell out on a load more new trains for this region, especially given the price an average commuter is paying for his/her ticket in the SE. Unfortunately, neither will ever happen.

While ensuring that all high peak trains are fully but not overloaded, more use could be made of bouncing trains back from stations which have turn-round facilities - Kent House, Beckenham Junction, Bellingham, Sidcup, and Plumstead for example, to enable the train to make another peak journey as soon as possible. At present too many trains trundle along three parts empty when they could go back and pick up another load. I'd even suggest running two or three trains out of Charing Cross with a full load for Hither Green and Grove Park, running them down to Bromley North to turn back, and getting them back to Charing Cross more quickly than turning them back at Orpington, let alone Sevenoaks.

Trains do indeed terminate in the places you have listed already:
- Kent House has terminators (I believe, usually empties down from the AM peak for a quick peak service back).
- Beckenham Jn has AM and PM terminators, and a train that berths all day in the bay ready for a quick start to the PM peak.
- Bellingham is an impractical place to terminate services (although there are plans to start doing so when the SLL services are cancelled due to LOROL services). However, it does have 5 trains berthed there during the daytime, which makes for a quick and convenient starting location for PM peak services.
- Sidcup has plenty of AM and PM terminators.
- Plumstead has the "Plumstead Poppers" all day, every day.

Then there are the other often overlooked services, such as the Barnehurst, Slade Green and Crayford terminators, all of which usually head straight back to London ECS for the next service down. They continue in the same direction (driver doesn't need to change ends) as they are routed Up one of the other 2 lines.
All 3 of these Dartford Lines are also served by "Rounders", which start at Charing Cross or Cannon St, work all stations down one line and then all stations back up another and terminate at either Cannon St or Charing Cross. As with the terminating services above, they utilise either the Erith Loop or the Crayford Spur which saves at least 15-20 mins with the congestion at Dartford and the driver having to change ends.

Metro drivers do work MUCH harder than Mainline drivers, with an average of an extra 1-2 hours driving per day than their Mainline colleagues. Add to this that an average Metro driving duty has 100-120+ station stops (compared to only 30-40 for a "bad" Mainline driving duty), along with much tighter turn-around times and shorter breaks, you can see that both Passengers and Staff on Mainline services are getting it relatively good.


Kind regards, and a happy weekend to All,

Richard

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Dear Messrs chapelwood and Trevithick

The discussion is very interesting and of course I agree with regard to "bounce back" services fulfilling two peak journeys instead of one.

We have come to a question in terms of - are the GoVex loading figures trustworthy or not in broad terms?

If they are trustworthy then main line services would more often break the PIXC rules than suburban services as their first stop is (except Bromley South) beyond the 20 minute maximum standing time. Remember it isn't the fact that some suburban services have a lot of standing passengers at the London end of their journeys but the fact that most stop a number of times within the 20 minute maximum time.

If GoVex loading advice figures are relatively accurate in terms of Low, Medium, High then there are more coaches on main line trains that are said by them to be High than on suburban trains at the same times. The total number of coaches on suburban trains from Cannon Street tagged as High total 62 against 135 for main line. At Charing Cross it is 88 against 134 and at Victoria it is 28 against 114. As a matter of record those said to be Medium or Low are 90% suburban and 10% main line.

Going back to the two trips per peak period the "Rounder" services leaving between 16.00 and 16.29 would be back by 18.00 to 18.30 so the 16.10 from Cannon Street which is a "Rounder" arrives back at Cannon Street at 17.53. It is marked as Low leaving Cannon Street on its first journey (and as a pure guess then works the 18.00 departure marked as Medium). This would suggest that it would better qualify for being an 8 car Notworker train and the present rolling stock used on one of the High loaded services.

As you rightly both say turning trains around at inner suburban stations is common sense and should then allow other trains to be first stop at the last station served by the terminating train. It should also allow for that train to travel further within the 20 minutes allowed and so carry any standing passengers further.

Where there are standing passengers then they should be able to stand in comfort - and I suspect that this is not the case with the 376 units which to mind are not well designed by only having two sets of sliding doors when experience from original BR tests show that three sets of wide single doors are needed to provide adequate access and egress to reduce dwell times and provide more comfortable standing space for those who unfortunately do not get a seat. Standing in front of the doors makes it difficult to get passengers off and on and a single wide door was proven to not actually reduce flow but allowed less passengers (per door set) to stand next to solid carriage sides in a larger space. (BR wasn't stupid)

One could say that those who pay more per mile have a right to a better product specification and this generally applies to those using main line services which are crowded out by short distance passengers paying a low fare per mile until they alight - at Bromley South for example. To me this is not a fair practice and perhaps travel on trains travelling longer distances should be at higher fares to discourage use by those who do have alternative services - which may take slightly longer but are not recorded as High by GoVex.

To encourage chapelwood to further consider bulk hauls the top 20 non London terminal stations in terms of footfall are (in order - M=main line, S=Suburban)

(S) Bromley South
(M) Tonbridge
(S) Lewisham
(S) Orpington
(M) Sevenoaks
(M) Tunbridge Wells
(M) Chatham
(S) Dartford
(S) New Cross
(S) Abbey Wood
(S) Sidcup
(S) Peckham Rye
(S) Woolwich Arsenal
(S) Blackheath
(S) Bexleyheath
(S) Hither Green
(M) Ashford Kent
(S) Gravesend Ctrl
(M) Gillingham Kent
(S) Herne Hill

Looking at the suburban services via London Bridge - New Cross, Lewisham and Hither Green are all there.

Looking at the Weald area Orpington, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells are on the same route as are Chatham and Gillingham (with Rainham and Sittingbourne being in the next five).

I believe that it supports by own long held belief that fewer, faster services to Faversham, Ashford and stations beyond would be filled for further and allow for more frequent Weald services. Food for thought...

Mr Trevithick, you raise an interesting subject. Studies carried out before privatisation, and thus with slam door trains, found that the workload for suburban drivers was higher based on the number of signals to be observed (with a higher volume not being green) coupled with more station stops - within one turn of duty - was higher than for main line work. On the other hand it found that the higher speeds required for main line drivers required higher level concentration to avoid missing signals and speed restrictions. Personally I have the greatest respect for all drivers.

Well - I've been controversial again...

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[BecsFaversham]

Ideally no standing for more than 20mins. It makes me laugh because if there are problems on the Cannon Street to Ramsgate/Broadstairs services, you are standing for a good 45 mins to Chatham, and very often not actually get a seat until Gillingham. At least on the Victoria services it empties at Bromley South.

[Richard Trevithick]

Jul 26, 2008 16:41:35 GMT O.V.S.Bulleid said:

We have come to a question in terms of - are the GoVex loading figures trustworthy or not in broad terms?

I suspect not. As far as I am aware, they only include ticket sales, therefore conveniently "ignorning" the countless thousands of "free rides" they dole out to the local chavscum each day (usually en-route to their next theft/break-in/mugging, etc.). If the figures included the free rides, then I'm sure something would HAVE to be done about it. Unfortunately, by ignoring the additional uncounted overcrowding, the TOCs and the government are able to brush the truth under the carpet and pretend they don't need to buy any more rolling stock. Besides, to have people either counting ALL passengers entering or exiting the station (or to properly man all stations) would cost money that they wouldn't otherwise be able to dole out to the freeloading shareholders!

One could say that those who pay more per mile have a right to a better product specification and this generally applies to those using main line services which are crowded out by short distance passengers paying a low fare per mile until they alight - at Bromley South for example. To me this is not a fair practice and perhaps travel on trains travelling longer distances should be at higher fares to discourage use by those who do have alternative services - which may take slightly longer but are not recorded as High by GoVex.

My turn to be rather controversial. Why don't people just get to the station a few minutes earlier to guarantee themselves a seat? Traditionally rail transport in the South East has been on a first-come, first-served basis with no reservation or bookings (other than groups, such as school children, etc.). Therefore, surely getting there an extra 5 mins early will not only guarantee a free seat, but will also eliminate the mad dash as the doors are closing, and saving getting rather intimate with the people you crash into whilst diving through the doors?!

Mr Trevithick, you raise an interesting subject. Studies carried out before privatisation, and thus with slam door trains, found that the workload for suburban drivers was higher based on the number of signals to be observed (with a higher volume not being green) coupled with more station stops - within one turn of duty - was higher than for main line work. On the other hand it found that the higher speeds required for main line drivers required higher level concentration to avoid missing signals and speed restrictions. Personally I have the greatest respect for all drivers.

Interesting information, Mr Bullied. One interesting view to take on this subject from my Driver Seances is the Mainline drivers ALWAYS moan on the rare occasions when they are given Suburban work, even if it's only 1 or 2 trips of their rostered duty. The usual complains are it's too intensive, and they can't sit there with speedset (aka cruise control) switched on, which drives the train for them! Further, they also complain that they get far more restrictive aspects on the Suburban work, whilst zipping along the mainline at 90mph usually results in only green aspects 98% of the time, with cautionary / danger aspects usually only being encountered in the London area.


How is everyone finding the weather today? Are those Electrostars still toasty warm, or are some of them actually cooling and providing a relatively pleasant atomosphere?

Kind regards,

Richard

[Neil]

Jul 28, 2008 14:20:56 GMT Richard Trevithick said:

My turn to be rather controversial. Why don't people just get to the station a few minutes earlier to guarantee themselves a seat? Traditionally rail transport in the South East has been on a first-come, first-served basis with no reservation or bookings (other than groups, such as school children, etc.). Therefore, surely getting there an extra 5 mins early will not only guarantee a free seat, but will also eliminate the mad dash as the doors are closing, and saving getting rather intimate with the people you crash into whilst diving through the doors?!
How is everyone finding the weather today? Are those Electrostars still toasty warm, or are some of them actually cooling and providing a relatively pleasant atomosphere?

Kind regards,

Richard

I always aim to get to Charing X for the 17.12 to Ramsgate 10- 15 minutes early. Fortunately, my working pattern allows for this

It's not always possible. One day last week I got the 17.09 London Vic to Ramsgate/Dover. I arrived just on time to get a seat but it was pretty heavily loaded when it left. By the number of people who got on on in the last 3-4 minutes I'd be guessing there were quite a few who left work round the Victoria area at 5ish. The next train is 20 minutes later but I reckon most of us do want to get home as soon as possible

It's too hot to work!!!. I got the 6.30 Ramsgate Victoria this am and it was quite pleasant - apart from a few loos being out or order

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

My Dear Mr Trevithick

I fear that I must take issue on your posting regarding the GoVex loading advice.

The loadings are for peak hour services which are mainly occupied by season ticket holders (plus a sprinkling of no ticket holders). Counting of passengers takes place twice a year so may well form the basis of the tables - but the fact that the advice is High, Medium and Low does not suggest that there is an atempt to deliver a measure "down to 100% accuracy". (What am I doing almost supporting GoVex?)

This is a general advice on travelling conditions which (probably inadvertantly - yes, back on track) demonstrates poor management of rolling stock allocation as well as an operation of a less than optimum frequency to routes with heaviest loadings.

Because trains making their first stops at Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, High Brooms or Chatham should not have any standing passengers there should be no problem in turning up close to departure time on present services to and from the existing terminals and many shorter distant trains have short turnarounds so not a lot of benefit for them either.

When it comes to the future services from North London it will be an absolute necessity if your destination is in the front 6 coaches of a 12 car Ashford Line train as there is no ability to get from one unit to the other. This removes yet more of any slight advantage to using such services instead of a faster one from Cannon Street or Charing Cross for most people (remember 80% of passengers from Cannon St and slightly fewer from Charing Cross walk from/to their London terminal).

The promised 2009 timetable release still hasn't happened - now 6 months late from original press information - and one must expect that things are still not settled. One would hope that they are playing the DfT and its minister (with her present governmental problems) for every ounce of their passengers' wants and if they are then I certainly wish them well. If they aren't then I suggest that every Labour MP in a GoVex constituency is toast...

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid

[O.V.S.Bulleid]

Just a linked photo of the 1972 prototype high density unit at Waterloo.
www.therailwaycentre.com/EMU%20photo%20file/PEP_Wloo
These had the three doors that I mentioned but at that time they had double sliding doors. It was later found that passenger flows were still only just over 1 per occasion and a single door solution would be cheaper and as efficient.

Yours sincerely
O.V.S.Bulleid