James wrote:
Clive Coleman wrote in message
...
In message , James
writes
Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a
minute and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains
wouldn't even have stopped there.
I get a mini-bus an hour if I'm lucky, yet you moan.

The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of
running a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that
SWT are forced to try and operate like a country railway within
the urban section. They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a
metro service with 15-20 second stops and simply getting on with
it. Otherwise, they will deserve a reputation for being slow.

Dwell times of 15-20 seconds are probably not achievable with only 2
doors per car. I'm not sure what you mean by "simply getting on with
it". Do you mean running without a timetable? That would cause chaos
at Waterloo! In any case, SWT's services aren't frequent enough to
abolish the public timetable, and if you publish one, passengers will
expect you to keep to it.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Chris Tolley wrote in message . ..
On 28 Feb 2005 10:33:10 -0800, alan b wrote:

As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra
minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and
Basingstoke is more than just coincidental....

Could you clarify - were you previously on the fast lines, or in front
of the stoppers?


You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates
that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations
stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say
Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The
freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence
taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at
Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main!

On 3 Mar 2005 01:10:13 -0800, alan b wrote:

You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates
that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations
stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say
Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The
freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence
taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at
Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main!

I've often wondered about this kind of thing myself, having observed
some of the situations you describe. My logic say that even though a 165
can get from 0-75 reasonably quickly, it won't actually catch up with a
freightliner that does 75 all the way from Reading to Basingstoke...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767298.html
(4TC unit 8023 on the Weymouth Tramway on 31 Dec 1989)

On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote:

Clive Coleman wrote in message ...

In message , James
writes

Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute
and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even
have stopped there.

The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a
transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced
to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section.

What, like every other TOC operating in London?

They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20
second stops and simply getting on with it.

I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every
5 minutes or less.

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote:


Clive Coleman wrote in message ...


In message , James
writes


Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute
and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't even
have stopped there.

The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running a
transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are forced
to try and operate like a country railway within the urban section.


What, like every other TOC operating in London?


They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20
second stops and simply getting on with it.


I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every
5 minutes or less.

Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be
isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like
Crossrail hopes to do (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes
their plan relatively easy).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:28:44 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be
isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like
Crossrail hopes to do (although the current setup of the GW and GE makes
their plan relatively easy).

Rather like a German S-Bahn?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005, James wrote:

Clive Coleman wrote in message ...

In message , James
writes

Worse still, I've been on trains which have sat around for a minute
and a half at Earlsfield. Not long ago, half the trains wouldn't
even have stopped there.

The dynamics of an urban railway are very different to that of running
a transport service in the boondocks. The problem is that SWT are
forced to try and operate like a country railway within the urban
section.

They should be allowed, like LUL, to run a metro service with 15-20
second stops and simply getting on with it.

I agree entirely - including providing trains with lots more doors, every
5 minutes or less.

Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be
isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like
Crossrail hopes to do

Bingo.

(although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively
easy).

Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The
Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via
Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight
crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the
LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run
fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round
here?

The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the
idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough
just with people from south of the river.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- ntk

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be
isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like
Crossrail hopes to do


Bingo.


(although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively
easy).


Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The
Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via
Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight
crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the
LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run
fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round
here?

Trains to Guildford, Woking, and Dorking all use the slow lines. Not
enough demand at the country end to justify a metro service, and not
enough capacity on the fast lines (not to mention large numbers of
passengers using Clapham Junction and Wimbledon).

The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the
idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough
just with people from south of the river.

Possibly the only way to make my current journey even more difficult ;-)

Ian

Hang on...

What about where there is only an up and a down line - or worse, the
mainline goes to bi-directional single track. The Waterloo - Portsmouth and
Winchester/Eastleigh-Portsmouth services frequently wait outside Botley for
an up freight service. How can this be right?! Why don't Network Rail
reinstate the double track through the Fareham tunnels? Cost, I suppose.

As a comment, I have noticed that the new and improved SWT service from
Fareham-Southampton Central has increased from 20 mins to 25 mins in length,
with no additional stops! That's how SWT have increased punctuality. It
should be noted that Southern still haven't managed to get it right on the
same route!

"alan b" wrote in message
om...
Chris Tolley wrote in message
. ..
On 28 Feb 2005 10:33:10 -0800, alan b wrote:

As someone who drives freight trains, i'd assume that the 20 extra
minutes it now takes us when following a stopper between Woking and
Basingstoke is more than just coincidental....

Could you clarify - were you previously on the fast lines, or in front
of the stoppers?


You do not often see a freight on the fast. Signaller logic dictates
that a 75mph class 4 freight is slower than an all stations
stopper.For instance, a freight will frequently have to wait at say
Didcot for the stopping service to head off towards Reading.The
freight will then follow it all the way on the relief lines hence
taking three times longer. The gut wrencher is when you arrive at
Reading and realise that nothing has actually gone by you on the main!

Ian Harding wrote in message ...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Surely the only solution that would allow such a service would be
isolation of the metro tracks from the "country" tracks - much like
Crossrail hopes to do


Bingo.


(although the current setup of the GW and GE makes their plan relatively
easy).


Also bingo, sadly. Are there any separable bits in the SWT area? The
Hounslow loop isn't needed by country trains, since they can go via
Richmond, but it will be needed by goods trains until there's a freight
crossing across the Thames in the east. How about the slow lines on the
LSW mainline? Are those used by country trains, or does everything run
fast when it gets to Surbiton? Is there any scope for more tracks round
here?

Trains to Guildford, Woking, and Dorking all use the slow lines. Not
enough demand at the country end to justify a metro service, and not
enough capacity on the fast lines (not to mention large numbers of
passengers using Clapham Junction and Wimbledon).

The alternative is just to scrap the country service. Not sure i like the
idea of all these bumpkins getting into London anyway. It's bad enough
just with people from south of the river.

Possibly the only way to make my current journey even more difficult ;-)

Ian

Separating the Main Slow Lines out would be relatively easy. There
would be little bits of track-sharing with other trains on the
outskirts (rather like the Bakerloo Line does). There would be a cycle
of four destinations:
- Shepperton
- Chessington South
- Hampton Court
- Epsom
each of which could run every 10 minutes (so better frequencies than
Mill Hill East gets, therefore no need for a public timetable). The
only bits which would be shared with other services would be the Epsom
station area (with services from Victoria and London Bridge to the
country) and Kingston to Teddington (with services to Waterloo via
Richmond). People from the country who insist on Waterloo over
Victoria would have a nice easy cross-platform interchange at Epsom.
42 via Cobham trains would *all* use the Fast Lines.

As for dwell times, 15-20 seconds could be done at Earlsfield and most
stations from Raynes Park outwards (with obvious exceptions, including
Kingston, Surbiton, and Epsom).

The Windsor Lines of course wouldn't be separable into metro and long
distance - they are laid out in a way that's almost as bad as the
Central Section.

If all else fails, there's always the bus timetable approach to
timetabling - only timetable the first and last stops (and maybe a one
or two important intermediate ones).

James.