Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Meeting, 20.10.2021, 19:00
Report here
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 13:15 21 Oct 2021
- Petrol station stocks back to normal
- Bill Turnbull: Classic FM presenter steps back from radio show for health reasons
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 27/10/21 - Railfuture on Cirencester
20/11/21 - Railfuture on Saltford
09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
08/03/22 - WWRUG AGM - B-o-A
Random Image
Train RunningCancelled
11:50 Penzance to Plymouth
12:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
12:12 London Paddington to Bristol Parkway
12:36 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
14:15 London Paddington to Bristol Parkway
14:17 Plymouth to Penzance
15:10 Bristol Parkway to London Paddington
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:12 London Paddington to Bristol Parkway
Short Run
07:13 Paignton to London Paddington
08:00 Cardiff Central to Penzance
08:04 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:10 Penzance to London Paddington
10:41 Great Malvern to Brighton
10:50 Penzance to Cardiff Central
10:54 Paignton to London Paddington
11:55 Great Malvern to London Paddington
13:00 Cardiff Central to Penzance
13:07 London Paddington to Newbury
13:08 Taunton to Cardiff Central
13:27 London Paddington to Didcot Parkway
14:12 Paignton to London Paddington
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 10:11 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
10:15 Penzance to London Paddington
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 10:25 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
11:40 Bedwyn to London Paddington
12:00 Cardiff Central to Taunton
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 12:01 Taunton to London Paddington
12:04 London Paddington to Penzance
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 12:15 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
13:12 Reading to Newbury
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 13:14 Exeter St Davids to Plymouth
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 21, 2021, 01:17:23 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[191] MEETING (20.10.2021) report - Bristol to Waterloo
[61] Additional fare payable
[44] Isle of Wight futures.
[32] South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed
[26] Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion
[22] UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: North Downs December 2019 timetable changes and lack of investment  (Read 15661 times)
sunfire
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« on: October 03, 2019, 12:47:23 pm »

Just a warning to people to expect timetabling changes on the Gatwick to Reading line in December.

Unfortunately the draft timetables shows the changes will be for the benefit of GWR (Great Western Railway) not customers: longer journey times, no integration with timetables of connecting services and the continued use of platform 15A/B at Reading causing confusion and delay for passengers.

Expect further misery in May 2020 when the "new" Class 769 trains, which are currently experiencing large numbers of breakdowns during trial runs, are introduced. These are not new trains but simply refurbished trains which are actually older and slower stock than we have at the moment.

No word yet of improvements on this line: fixing the regular breakdown of signaling at Wokingham and Guildford, removing unnecessary rail crossing preventing access to platforms, removing the causes of frequent speed restrictions, electrification, or faster newer trains.

Feeling more and more like we are getting a Cinderella service.

Rgds.,
Sunfire

Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1111



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2019, 10:02:38 pm »

Thanks Sunfire - retirement looks even more attractive..

Can you direct me to where you found the new timetable please?
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5845


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2019, 11:48:13 pm »

There are times on the data feeds, visible in e.g. Real Time Trains and Journey planners, which I guess is the basis for this. The timetable there was not complete when it first appeared and it still isn't - an afternoon gap with no trains through to Gatwick, and an evening one with no trains out of Reading. So, work still needed there.

Some of what was expected has been delayed, as we know, notably the third train per hour. The shifting of times of two trains to match those of two out of three (in an earlier draft feed) has disappeared too. I was expecting some issues with fitting trains around other increased services, at both ends and Guildford, though some of that has already happened and the extra Waterloo/Reading trains are also delayed.

What I do see are two things, one being a longer time for journeys at busier times (which may be what the OP (Original Poster / topic starter) was referring to). This is due to longer dwells from Reading to Guildford, up from one to two minutes (and three at Wokingham). I guess experience has shown that one minute isn't long enough for current passenger loads.

The other effect is the loss of the near-clockface service through much of the middle of the day. This is puzzling - surely the "more services" that have to be fitted around are also clockface? I can see that times might shift away from 30 minute spacing, but that was only ever possible at one end anyway. But a different time past every hour - why?

The rest of Cinderella's clothes are not timetabling issues, so there's no reason for her to change them for  a new timetable. And yes, 769s are pumpkins and will stay pumpkins.
Logged
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5704


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2019, 06:17:07 am »

The rest of Cinderella's clothes are not timetabling issues, so there's no reason for her to change them for  a new timetable. And yes, 769s are pumpkins and will stay pumpkins.
I have a great deal of respect for your very detailed and analytical posts on this forum stuving. So for you to call 769s pumpkins doesn’t fill me with a great deal of confidence. The silence on this project also brings cause for concern.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8882


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2019, 06:42:45 am »

They’ll be nice and whizzy on the 3rd rail sections at least, but I also have doubts about performance on diesel comparing favourably with a Turbo.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1353


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2019, 07:11:36 am »

Presumably if they do end up providing a through service from Oxford they will have to use platform 15A/B, which is the only one that can access the cut under to the Wokingham line?
Logged
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2019, 08:25:23 am »

Presumably if they do end up providing a through service from Oxford they will have to use platform 15A/B, which is the only one that can access the cut under to the Wokingham line?

The ex-SR(resolve) Diveunder can be accessed to/from Platform Nos.13, 14 and 15.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 09:58:20 am by SandTEngineer » Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 888


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2019, 10:02:37 am »


Presumably the extensive testing of the 769's is aimed at eliminating unreliabilty.

Looking at comparative powers, a 165 has 1050hp for 111t, about 7.6hp/t at rail.

A 769 at say 150t with 1046hp has about 5.6hp at rail but with 1440hp electric drive has 9.6hp/t at rail (again at 80% diesel transfer).

The route to Guildford from Reading is not that precipitous with only a mile climb to Crowthorne at 1:150 and an electrified descent into Guildford at 1:100.

However from Shalford Jn onwards the route is a switchback of c1:100 all the way to Reigate. This will tax and slow the 769's somewhat although being heavier they will be faster downhill!

Can marginal third rail electrification be that unsafe?

The 319, Thameslink units were much admired 30 years ago for their performance. It's not really fair to compare them with the latest over-powered units that have required so much upgrading of power supplies.

EOE,

OTC

Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5845


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2019, 07:44:33 pm »

I fear the 769s may be worse wimps on wheels than OTC foretells.

There is more information in a Rail Engineer article last year by Maclolm Dobell, based on going to visit Porterbrook. They are reported thus:
Quote
The rated output of two diesel engines at 780kW is the maximum they can produce. By the time alternator efficiency, auxiliary supplies, and traction control efficiency are taken into account, the electrical input to the traction motors will be approximately 550kW, little more than half the maximum rated output of the traction motors.

That's only 70% of prime power, and there's still motor losses to come (and these are still the old DC (Direct Current) motors) - far worse than OTC's already rather miserable assumption. They are going to struggle to get rid of all that heat!

On performance, they resort to what sounds like waffle.
Quote
Simon and Helen are well aware of this deficit. They explained that simple headline figures do not tell the whole story and that the required performance on diesel was likely to be as good as, if not better than the Class 150.
...
Compared with a Class 150, the Class 769 has a higher tractive effort on starting, but the tractive effort falls away more steeply. This difference in tractive effort curves makes it difficult simply to predict performance on any particular route, illustrating the importance and value of modelling. Modelling has shown the gradient balancing speed on a flat gradient when powered by the diesel engines to be approximately 87mph and the trains will retain the 100mph capability when powered by electricity. The modelling has also shown that two 1000-litre fuel tanks should be ample for the expected duty.

If it can only do 87 mph on the flat, an envelope flip suggests it might just do 52 mph up 1 in 100.

Incidentally, the minimum tare weight of a 319 (based on equal axle loads in each vehicle) is 140.3 t and for a 769 the DTSOs put on 7.5 t each. Presumably the other two gain only a little, but the total must be over 156t. Note I used tare weights, I don't know if that 87 mph did - adding passengers will obviously make it even slower.

If you want an example that goes to the other extreme, look at the Stadler class 755/4 just come into service with GA (Greater Anglia). Here the weight is a bit of a guess, but based on this it's only 114 t. For some reason these 4-cars have four engines (the 755/3 has two) with an output of 1920 kW! Now, Stadler do say one is a spare - so they can run the rest at 75%, or give each a rest in turn. But even in that case you're looking at 12.6 kW/t (prime) - compared with 5.0 for the 769, before allowing for the very high losses. Must be for all those famous East Anglian hills.
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1111



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2019, 10:39:12 pm »

Oh dear!

Quote
The other effect is the loss of the near-clockface service through much of the middle of the day. This is puzzling - surely the "more services" that have to be fitted around are also clockface? I can see that times might shift away from 30 minute spacing, but that was only ever possible at one end anyway. But a different time past every hour - why?

That is ridiculous! How are you going to encourage more usage of trains if passengers don't have a regular service that they know without looking it up when it's likely to be there? As GWR (Great Western Railway) North Downs trains are the only users of several stretches (give or take a daily XC service), surely they could have achieved retaining the current pattern without too much difficulty.

Quote
If it can only do 87 mph on the flat, an envelope flip suggests it might just do 52 mph up 1 in 100

So a packed one climbing to Crowthorne crammed with Farnborough students on a day with poor railhead conditions keeping to time looks remote. The Turbos already readily spin their wheels on the gradients around Sandhurst.

Quote
What I do see are two things, one being a longer time for journeys at busier times (which may be what the OP (Original Poster / topic starter) was referring to). This is due to longer dwells from Reading to Guildford, up from one to two minutes (and three at Wokingham). I guess experience has shown that one minute isn't long enough for current passenger loads.

This is recognition of reality. My current regular morning trains (08-04 or 08-20 ex-Reading) usually are 2-3 minutes late at Guildford.

Hmm - not looking forward to the 769s coming to the North Downs line - Cinderella is very apt, Stuving!

 

Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5845


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2019, 11:38:01 pm »

So a packed one climbing to Crowthorne crammed with Farnborough students on a day with poor railhead conditions keeping to time looks remote. The Turbos already readily spin their wheels on the gradients around Sandhurst.

Oh, I didn't mention adhesion did I? The figure of merit for that, indicating how well a train copes with low friction or the steepest gradient it could ever climb, is the fraction of its weight on motored axles. For a Turbo that's 0.5 (provided all engines are pushing), while for a 319 it's 0.36. Adding engines to the two DTSOs brings that down to below 0.33, a significant disadvantage relative to the Turbos.

And it was Sunfire who first mentioned Cinderella - I just dragged in her pumpkin; there'll be no fine carriage to take you to the ballGuildford young man!
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1111



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2019, 12:59:57 pm »

Apologies Sunfire for not correctly attributing the Cinderella idea to you!

Bearing in mind the use of elderly diesels for Cinderella services (rebuilt Brush Type 4s for Night Riviera), perhaps someone will acquire a few old class 37s, spray them "new" GWR (Great Western Railway) green, name them (after Manors - that would be appropriate for the North Downs?) and use them as banking engines between Reading and Gatwick! Roll Eyes

PS - Cross thread query prompted by my apology above - has the extensive combined eclectic fount of obscure knowledge that is the Coffee Shop given up on the challenge of tracing the first use of the who reads what newspaper gag? (see - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.msg273919#msg273919) Or is Robin Summerhill still up in his loft looking - should someone call around to see if he's OK?
Logged
FenMan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 21


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2019, 09:37:17 am »

They’ll be nice and whizzy on the 3rd rail sections at least, but I also have doubts about performance on diesel comparing favourably with a Turbo.

An insider posting on the RailUK forum says the 769s are now planned to run on diesel throughout, as Network Rail have objected to the additional loading on the 3rd rail infrastructure between Redhill and Gatwick.

Also, the 769s cannot transfer to electric operation "on the go", which means that GWR (Great Western Railway) had already discounted the use of the 3rd rail between Ash and Guildford.

[sarcasm]I am so looking forward to the introduction of this stock.[/sarcasm]
Logged
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5704


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2019, 10:11:09 am »

An insider posting on the RailUK forum says the 769s are now planned to run on diesel throughout, as Network Rail have objected to the additional loading on the 3rd rail infrastructure between Redhill and Gatwick.

Also, the 769s cannot transfer to electric operation "on the go", which means that GWR (Great Western Railway) had already discounted the use of the 3rd rail between Ash and Guildford.

[sarcasm]I am so looking forward to the introduction of this stock.[/sarcasm]
I have another suggestion. I understand that EMR» (East Midlands Railway, also known as EMT» (East Midlands Trains - about) (East Midlands Trains) - about) are releasing some 158s that currently operate Liverpool-Norwich. Keep 158s on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line where they are popular with the travelling public compared to 165/166s with 2+3 seating leaving 166s to continue to run Reading-Gatwick. Is it really worth converting an electric train over to diesel that from what is being said isn't looking a good option?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8882


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2019, 12:05:49 am »

According to a post on railforums, the 3tph service on the North Downs Line, much delayed, is now happening next May.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page