One thing that swiftly becomes apparent when looking at the recent London and South East draft RUS is how the proposed solutions to capacity problems are very different for the different lines, which all have their own particular features. In the lines examined so far there seems to be a positive way forward to overcome these problems in situations where they could become significant, although it does seem that the Brighton Main Line would face a relatively small capacity ‘gap’ that has no easy solutions.
We now look at the South West Main line which is basically the area covered by South West Trains except for the Windsor lines which we looked at last time. All these services pass through Wimbledon. These in turn can be conveniently divided into inner (suburban) services and an outer services (outer suburban and longer distance). They tend to terminate in the eastern side of Waterloo station.
There does not seem to be too much of an issue relating to inner suburban services. The committed plan is to increase these to 10-car trains which it believed will be adequate for many years to come. However, there is also the dire warning that, if it turns out that yet further capacity is needed , “it is emphasised that providing 12-car suburban capability at London Waterloo is complex and high cost.” One presumes they are talking about the plan to extend the platforms onto the concourse and relocate the circulating areas below the tracks, as is done at St Pancras.
For the outer suburban services and beyond there is no easy fix, as these are services which are already operated by 12-car trains. Unfortunately it is here that a significant “gap” has been identified. The phrase “running out of options” springs to mind. The RUS makes three suggestions – one of these it does not recommend, one requires further analysis and one is “potentially needed in the long term if other options cannot be identified.
The least favoured option is double-deck trains. Increased dwell times are cited but the main problem is the “extremely disruptive and expensive” need to regauge tunnels and raise bridges. There is also doubt expressed that it would actually do much to solve the problem. Certainly a double-deck 20 metre long carriage is going to have a fair portion of its space wasted in the end vestibules.
The next option is to eke out an extra four train paths per hour. This would bring capacity to 28tph, which is really taking it to the maximum. Just to achieve this is going to require the remodelling of Waterloo station throat and approaches and grade separation of Woking junction as well as other infrastructure changes. The obvious disadvantages are that there would now be no slack whatsoever in the timetable so recovery from even a minor disruption would be very difficult. There is no way you can build on this solution once implemented. However, the reason the RUS is lukewarm to this is that it only goes halfway to resolving the overcapacity issue. Even when implemented you would still have a problem.
The final suggestion is to run 16-car trains. In recent years, trains have tended not to exceed twelve carriages. An exception, of course, is Eurostar – but the requirements there are very, very different. Now that trains tend to be fixed formation there really is no opportunity to just add an extra carriage on an ad-hoc basis to make up a longer train to cover a particular heavily-loaded service. As a result, around twelve carriages has been the maximum that has until now made sense for domestic operation.
The idea of running sixteen carriages on a suburban or outer-suburban service is certainly not new. In the heyday of EPB stock, Southern region looked at running 16 carriages (4 units) on the Brighton line. There, it was not the power supply or the longer platforms that was the main problem – it was that it was realised that, as the signalling was designed with a maximum of 12 carriages in mind, it meant that a longer train could actually lead to further restrictions in capacity as the signalling and track layouts would no longer be optimised. Of course the layouts could have been redesigned, but this would then put further restrictions on all train movements regardless of the length of the actual train. The lesson learnt is that you need to run at least a fair proportion of your services at the maximum length that the track and signalling are designed for, otherwise, by allowing for longer trains than you are actually running, you could actually end up reducing overall capacity.
Sixteen carriage trains is not generally put forward as a solution to the railway capacity problem in the UK. However on the South West Main Line there probably three things in its favour:
i) The empty Eurostar terminal at Waterloo could very easily handle the long trains and the number of people arriving at the terminal at the same time would not pose a major problem as the infrastructure has been designed to handle this.
ii) The plan is to combine two eight carriage trains at an outer-suburban stations such as Basingstoke or Woking. If they run non-stop you only actually have to lengthen the platform at one or possibly two stations although the lengthening at those stations would be substantial – realistically we are talking about between 85 and 100 metres by the time we allow extra space for coupling and uncoupling.
iii) You would not suffer too much from the issue of limiting the signalling or track capacity. This is because this tends to be more of a problem when the trains are stationary and occupying track circuits for a relatively long time. A long train speeding along the line is not going to have that much of a negative impact.
The problem with the proposal for longer trains is that the long ex-international platforms at Waterloo are on the west side of the station whereas the trains involved currently terminate on the east side. What is needed is a flyover in the Clapham Junction area. The RUS does not go into any detail into this and as always the devil is in the detail. There are no suggestions as to exactly where the flyover would be or whether the trains would call at Clapham Junction.
In summary, for the longer distance services the RUS offers three options which are presented as the no-good solution, the short-term partial solution or the long-term proper solution. It emphasises that for the latter two “further analysis is required”. Of course there is nothing to stop the some of the infrastructure enhancements required for the partial-solution being implemented prior to the implementation of the long-term solution. The RUS gives the impression here that it really is a case of: “Here are the three options. We are convinced one of them is rubbish but we really are not yet sure which of the other two options is the better one”. Longer trains would be interesting and would, if introduced, undoubtedly cause new problems that had not been anticipated or fully appreciated, they may, however, prove one of the few solutions. If that turns out to be the case though, then one must feel sorry for the people with heavy luggage who are in the last carriage as they arrive at Waterloo – and then realise just how far they have to walk just to get to the main station concourse.
Quite a lot of recycled news here, but ‘the Alliance’ has appointed ‘the consortium’ to; “scope out plans to… then be submitted to the ORR and DfT”.
Biggest investment for decades on South West Trains network moves a step closer
Re JA,
The rumour mill suggests work on P1-4 involving a month plus blockade of P1-5 could occur next year.
Christian Roth (referenced in the link above provided by JA) is speaking about future SW capacity at the Modern Railways’ Fourth Friday Club this week. The event is at the IMechE.
As a regular at Waterloo, I have seen it almost overwhelmed with people at times of disruption. I wonder if any serious capacity changes are planned for the non-train side of the station in order to cope with the extra hordes that will be shipped in and out by all this new train/platform capacity?
@ngh
“The rumour mill suggests work on P1-4 involving a month-plus blockade of P1-5 could occur next year.”
If they can do it in a matter of months I would really be surprised. It took them two months to replace (like for like) the pointwork at Wimbledon, and over three years to refurbish the waiting room at my local station.
There is a webchat on Wednesday – why don’t you ask them? (I’ve already got twelve questions prepared – more would be greedy!)
@Fandroid
“I wonder if any serious capacity changes are planned for the non-train side of the station”
They have already removed most of the on-concourse buildings, which has helped a bit. I can’t imagine they will do anything more.
Actually announcing platforms for trains earlier would help – more people waiting on platforms sooner means less crowd on the concourse.
Their favourite trick is closing exits in the mornings “because of the congestion” – thereby making it harder to get out and making matters worse!
@timbeau. I suspect that there is a little bit more early platform announcement than there used to be. Several times recently I have seen the platform announced before the incoming train arrived. Luckily there is normally nothing in the opposite side of the platform so walking up that side allows room for the incoming passengers to escape. Also, the Salisburies usually spend a fair amount of time in the platform, so loading those is a bit more relaxed than it is for others.
I agree about closing exits. When they close the Waterloo Road exit, presumably to ease pressure on the Jubilee Line, there is just no easily used alternative. Also, those huge signs saying ‘Exit’ over the ticket office doors probably confuse the innocent too.
@Fandroid
“I suspect that there is a little bit more early platform announcement than there used to be”
Maybe for the clients on the Salisburys and other high-status white trains, and perhaps eve the customers on the middle-ranking blue trains, but not for the cattle on the red trains at the low-status low-numbered platforms: the usual practice is to post the number up just as the train arrives, leading to conflicts at the barriers between the surge of people leaving the train and the rush of people trying to catch it, not to mention overcrowding at the rear of the outgoing train as people do not have time to get to the far end of the platform before getting whistles blown in their ears.
I may be in a grumpy mood this morning but I am getting awfully close to the point where comments on platform announcements at Waterloo, which seem to occur with monotonous regularity, might end up going the way of a short tube line found downstairs at Waterloo.
Re Timbeau,
Apparently 6 week blockade which is 3.5times longer than the total of the recent “Wimbledon weekends” except far more efficient as it is in one block so the actual potential non contingency working time could be 10-15 times more). The track work is easily done in a week as has been shown with the December and August London Bridge blockades and the platforms extensions should be perfectly sensible in that time (after all the platforms did use to be longer…).
What I didn’t like to know is whether the new point work will be a standard design like the the London Bridge works or custom like the lots of the exiting Waterloo point work which can cause lots of issues when something breaks… (e.g. Waterloo and Lewisham in the last few years.)
@ Ngh – your comment about point work prompts 2 questions. Is it NR policy to move to the use of standardised point / track work wherever possible? Has this / will this perhaps lead to some compromises on capacity / flexibility in order to reduce reliability / time to repair problems over the asset’s lifetime? I assume the appropriate business case / asset management work is done on a case by case basis for renewals / enhancements.
Hopefully “on topic” is the joint announcement by the DfT and SWT today about a £50m package of improvements. Adds a few extra trains on Sundays plus a couple of peak extras with the Salisbury Line being favoured. Oh and the long delayed extension of Stagecoach Smart into the London zonal area. Nothing substantial in the London area to boost Sunday / evening local services unfortunately. Probably no votes for the coalition in doing that. 😉
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-50-million-package-of-passenger-benefits-on-south-west-trains
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/50mpackageofbenefits.aspx
Ahem,
Suburban
Half-hourly service on the Hounslow loop on Sunday afternoons
@ngh
““The rumour mill suggests work on P1-4 involving a month-plus blockade of P1-5 could occur next year.””
Answer to Q126 of today’s webchat
“we recently announced a contract agreement with contractors to help us plan and scope out the works to Platforms 1-4”
i.e they haven’t yet got a plan how to do this work: they are only now talking about deciding how to make the plan. I’m not holding my breath for anything being “shovel-ready” any time soon. (It’s not as if they actually have enough rolling stock to run 10-car trains yet anyway!)
@timbeau, 25 March 2015 at 18:27
“It’s not as if they actually have enough rolling stock to run 10-car trains yet anyway!”
But it helps if the platforms are ready before they the 10 car trains arrive!
According to SWT MD Tim Shoveller, the Alliance’s target is a blockade of Platforms 1-4 for lengthening in the summer of 2017. However, to facilitate that they need to get the rest of the former International platforms up and running, so that they can shunt everything across for the duration. Hence the £4m spent on scaffolding to bridge over the ‘pit’ and connect Platforms 21 and 22 to the concourse.
As reported in the March 26 issue of Rail Business Intelligence, there are lots more plans in the pipeline, with ‘up to £1bn’ to be invested if SWT gets its direct award franchise extended to 2019 as it hopes. This includes total route modernisation between Barnes and Reading, bringing together platform lengthening, electrification enhancements and track relaying with the planned Feltham area resignalling.
Maybe Mr Roth will be able to elucidate on Friday.
@Chris J
I fail to see why they need a blockade to re-instate the original length of Platforms 1 to 4. I remember them being shortened about 30 years ago (not sure of exact date) as I commuted into these platforms daily from Clapham Junction. The lines remained open then. Ok – I concede it is easier if there are no trains running for a duration.
@Steven taylor
It is relatively easy to shorten a platform – close off the extra bit and demolish at your leisure. But before you can lengthen the platforms, you have to rearrange the tracks – there is pointwork in the way and that will have to be repositioned and signals moved.
The shortening was, I assume part of the WARS (Waterloo Area ReSignalling) project of the late 1980s. There were certainly some shutdowns then, but mainly at weekends rather than one big one over a few weeks. At some stage the pointwork was modified to take advantage of the space cleared by the shorter platforms.
Cramming all the work into weekends means spending a lot of time getting the show up and running again reliably every Monday morning – not an efficient way of doing things. Among other things, it led to this:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Hidden001.pdf
@Chris J – “total route modernisation between Barnes and Reading”
As this is my line, this sounds interesting, but makes me think I need to move away for a few years to avoid the disruption such projects cause. I don’t suppose total route modernisation includes removing the level crossings to increase capacity ?
Re Jim Cobb,
My guess would be starting with plenty more platform lengthening and power supply issues that have been flagged up to do “next time”, especially the further out you go i.e. enabling 10 car Reading services with 458/5s and more power hungry cl 707 on other via Barnes routes.
@Timbeau 10:49
Thanks for responding. I sort of half agree with your statement, but the word `blockade` used to make an erstwhile commuter (me) shudder. Blockades over run also.
I seem to recollect that Platforms 1 to 4 were shortened in order that standard two-way switches could be used, instead of the previous bespoke arrangement. It will be interesting to see what the new track layout will be.
@Steven T
“Blockades overrun also.”
See Kings Cross for example. But with a single big blockade you only have to get the system working again once, instead of spending much of each short closure: shutting down, making safe, and then putting it back together and making sure it works again a few hours later. Much more time spent actually doing the work, and many fewer opportunities to mess up (as we saw all too well at Clapham Junction in 1988). The SWML woes every Monday morning over the last few months because of the point replacement work at Wimbledon spread over several weekends illustrate why both the engineers and the operators prefer to get the job done in one go.
@ST
“the word `blockade` used to make an erstwhile commuter (me) shudder”
Forgot to add: me too – hopefully I can plan my holiday around it given enough warning.
Sadly I won’t get to see much benefit from all the aggro: I expect to retire very soon after 2017. My best-beloved has found a rather extreme way of avoiding it – she plans to have already retired by then!
An interesting question and answer regarding SWT capacity from the recent webchat.
Question: 194
You’ve been running this franchise since 1996 and in your news release on the 27th of Jan 2015, Mr Shoveller refers to “There is no quick or easy fix to improve reliability, boost capacity and catch up on years of under-investment. ” well you’ve had almost 20 years to increase investment and you clearly haven’t.
Don’t you think it’s about time that you started looking at your own performance, stop blaming all your failures on the past and take some responsibility?
Posted by Katie Hyde 24/03/2015 19:35:11
Answer:
I completely understand your question, but my comments are true! In 1999, SWT proposed a very extensive upgrade to implement 15 carriage trains for your services, a flyover to allow trains to cross into the Eurostar station and 12-car suburban services. Despite very large amounts of money being invested to develop the schemes, after 2 years of discussion with the then Strategic Rail Authority the plans were abondoned.
So there was no lack of vision or effort, but it is deeply frustrating that the schemes were not progressed. We have worked tirelessly with the Department for Trainsport to work out how we increase capacity on the network.
Unlike other routes, there are no simple measures to increase capacity on the mainline services – by Dec 17, all trains for both the morning and evening 3hr peaks will be at the maximum length that the infrastructure can accomodate and we already run 24 trains in the peak hour all the way from Surbiton to Waterloo – no one else attempts to do this.
There are many reasons why the Infrastructure, which is owned and funded by Network Rail is not as relaible as it needs to be to support such a busy railway. We are working hand in hand to improve the quality of the railway, noting a 57% increase in track renewals in the last year, infrastrucrure delays are now falling – but any incident with a train every 2 mins is immediately very significant.
So, I am completely responsible for the railway, but the consequences of previous decisons by funders (DfT and ORR) despite over 400m this year in premia paid by SWT to government, do have a consequence on the options I have. We are working hard to resolve all these issues.
Regards
Tim Shoveller
Remarkably frank !! DfT’s decisions over the recent decades seem to be coming home to roost across the South-East – certainly to the South of London.
The blockade is currently planned for 21 days but this is to be confirmed. It will not be 6 weeks. It will be in summer 2017 to enable a 10 car service for the December 17 timetable change.
Also, to be clear, the South West Trains-NR alliance is not the client. Network Rail is the client. The ‘consortium’ is not a consortium, it is another, completely distinct, alliance, of Network Rail, AECOM, Colas Rail, MottMacdonald and Skanska.
Track design is to be developed (currently GRIP3) but will be bespoke. The track cannot be installed in a week as suggested above, it is more than 20 point ends as it stands.
The international terminal is also being redeveloped and is planned to be used during the blockade. This may or may not use the current ‘deck’ entrance.
“…………… and we already run 24 trains in the peak hour all the way from Surbiton to Waterloo – no one else attempts to do this. ……..”
As their ToC holds a monopoly for that section, that’s a rather silly statement to make.
I saw that and thought it was a silly statement too. What does it mean anyway? There are certainly fewer than 24tph calling at Surbiton. And 24tph is a much lower throughput than is achieved on many tube lines – which have more frequent stops.
Does that 24tph cover only the trains using the fast lines – it’s even less impressive if it includes the stopping services.
timbeau / Castlebar
Let’s look at the timetable & see what we find arriving @ Waterloo 08.00 – 09.00?
T152: 6 (slows)
T155 (Basingstoke/Alton/Guildford) 9
T158 (Soton & P’mouth) 6
T160 (Salisbury) 2
Makes 23 – so I’ve probably missed one, but the 6 in table 152 will be using the slow lines, won’t they?
@ Timbeau – I assume Surbiton is a 4 track stretch of line? If so, 24 tph is fairly useless on a 2 track stretch towards Waterloo. Surely they can run at a 3 min headway on the fasts in the peak giving you 20 tph already and there must be a decent enough service on the slows even recognising some trains slot in further north.
@Greg
With the exception of the 0816 arrival which is last stop Winchester and only shown on Table 158, all the trains on the SWML are shown on tables 152 (five) or 155 (sixteen). So I make it a total of 22, of which four have to use the slow lines as they call at New Malden. (The slow lines get much busier further in as the Kingston line and Epsom branches join in at New Malden and Raynes Park, contributing a further 15. So 37 tph on a four-track railway after Raynes Park.
I think it refers to running 24tph on the fast line towards London in the morning peak. Certainly between 0730-0830 24 trains are timetabled to pass through platform 6 at Wimbledon. (at least there are next Tuesday according to realtimetrains)
The only place I would have thought came close in terms of frequency is the GEML and looking at the same period for Stratford there are 20 trains through platforms 9 and 10 towards Liverpool Street. For comparison it appears 12 trains pass platform 4 at New Cross Gate towards London Bridge; and 16 trains through platform 12 at Clapham Junction towards Victoria between 0730-0830. I can’t imagine there are many single stretches of track on Network Rail, fast or slow, where there are 24tph or more scheduled.
@JA
Greg and I are missing six or seven then, which is a lot, even allowing for the slightly different time frame. (0800-0900 at Waterloo equates to about 0745-0845 at Wimbledon). What have we missed?
At a guess I’d say; a couple of trains that run via Effingham Junction then fast from Surbiton; one that starts from Haslemere and runs non stop from Worplesdon; a Portsmouth train that runs non stop from Guildford; a Yeovil train that runs non stop from Basingstoke; and a West Byfleet starter that runs fast from Surbiton?
@JA: “(at least there are next Tuesday according to realtimetrains)”.
My colleagues using SWT would say: “Yeah, like that’s going to happen”….
@JA -@1334 re answer 194, “Department of Trainsport”! 🙂
JA,
I can’t imagine there are many single stretches of track on Network Rail, fast or slow, where there are 24tph or more scheduled.
It is only a short section but at Borough Market Junction there are normally 29tph to Charing Cross.
I don’t particularly want to knock South West Trains but they are fond of coming out with statements that seem to indicate that they achieve more than any other TOC in various regards when they are never comparing like with like. It all sounds impressive but what other TOC has 8 tracks (at times) leading to a terminus with over 20 platforms.
The South West Railway (the deep alliance preferred name) has some impressive plans but less impressive is how long it has taken to get to 10-car trains. I may be wrong but I have never heard any reason for this that contradicts the idea that South West Trains (the TOC) dragged their feet over this. Only now is a plan in place to acquire the longer trains. I am happy to be corrected if anyone knows any different and better.
@PoP
To be fair to SWT, there was no point in having ten-car trains until Waterloo could take them, and that depended on International being handed over to them, which was snarled up in legal complications. Moreover, the extra vehicles to make the 455s and 458s up to ten car trains have only recently come available from Southern as part of the redeployment of the 442s displacing 460s, and the Thameslink cascade – new 377s and 387s which have released the 456s. Neither type can be used “as-is” – post privatisation Southern and SWT have modified their 455/456 fleets in different ways, so that ex Southern 456s can no longer work with SWT 455s without modification – although changing the seating was, in my view, unnecessary.
As for the 458/460s, these have to be completely rebuilt.
Neither project has gone smoothly.
I miscounted – there are 20 arrivals at Waterloo on Table 155: (I stopped counting at the 0906 Waterloo arrival, not noticing the three trains that overtake it). Add the Winchester flyer and the Cobham line train that runs non-stop from Surbiton still only makes 22.
@JA
“At a guess I’d say; a couple of trains that run via Effingham Junction then fast from Surbiton; – there is only one: arr Waterloo 0813: appears on Table 152 (this is why there are five on table 152 but only four stoppers)
“one that starts from Haslemere and runs non stop from Worplesdon”
arr Waterloo 0811, Table 155,
“a Portsmouth train that runs non stop from Guildford”
arr Waterloo 0832, Table 155,
“a Yeovil train that runs non stop from Basingstoke”
arr Waterloo 0814, Table 155,
“and a West Byfleet starter that runs fast from Surbiton”
arr Waterloo 0826, Table 155.
All accounted for.
@timbeau 21.29
As all of these units were fine examples of British Railway design and build no wonder they’ve taken so long to bring into service. Especially the 458/460 stock.
@the printer
Agree about the 458/460 – it was a real struggle to get both types to work. Very early post-privatisation types – very late into service, and no repeat orders at all – both SWT and Scotrail (which had the class 334 variant) went for Siemens for later orders.
Poorly specified (remember the “oh, you want to be able couple the 458s together in service, not just in the depot” misunderstanding), poorly designed, and poorly built. SWT did finally get the 458s working, but it’s a big job to convert them to 5-car.
The difficulties with the 456s are more unexpected: over time SWT’s and Southern’s mark 3-derived units have evolved into different species, and can no longer mate without some minor but intricate surgery.
It is interesting to note how windows have been a particular issue. The windows in the 458s and 460s were of different types, and these have not been modified so the ex-class 460 cars stand out because of the black window surround.
http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/news/swt/img/gbee458502windowscomparison_wat221014.jpg
As for the 456s, there is a windowless section of blank wall where the toilet used to be: it was apparently too expensive to install a window, resulting in four seats having a blank wall instead of a view out.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ljIMVeppGoA/VMt0-Y85W4I/AAAAAAAACJw/QAEQp8ekxwM/s1600/P1090837.JPG
@ Timbeau – that 456 “no window” is dreadful. Too much scope for people to miss a station stop by not being able to see where they are. And I thought the end seats on 09 stock having no view was useless. Sheesh.
I don’t understand the window problem. The toilets had windows and after the toilets were removed, a full-sized window (usually?) replaced it. Compare the before and after photos on the two pages here:
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class456_1.html
The Class 455 also has a blank wall where the two pairs of seats are against the bulkhead:
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class455_01.html
Each toilet was remote from the cab end.
P.S. There was only one toilet per unit, so there was a full window on one side and a single ‘toilet’ window on the other.
@Graham T
wrong tense – there IS a small “toilet” window (at the non-driving end of the driving trailer on the left hand side only). Not sure which photo you have identified as the “after” photo, but this is a 456 in recent Southern livery (driving trailer furthest from the camera)
http://s683.photobucket.com/user/hfnrco/media/Wandsworth%20Road%20150611/456015WandsworthRoad.jpg.html
and here is a pair in SWT colours,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenpoole/16273799285/in/set-72157642851135674
(again with the DTS further from the camera)
Both showing the side where the former toilet was.
To clarify – SWT’s refurbishment of the 456 does not involve the removal of the toilets. They had already been removed during Southern’s “refresh” of them in 2006. The windows were not modified then, and are not being modified now.
It would be interesting to see the actual plans for the platform extensions at Waterloo. Arriving on Friday (at platform 6, I think) I looked out towards the higher numbered platforms and was amazed at how narrow the nearest platform ends are. With the yellow ‘stand back’ lines in place, there was only about 300mm (500mm at best) left for the travelling public to use. No doubt there are NR standards in place now for minimum platform widths, so we can assume those will apply for the extended platforms. It’s easy for us commenters to ask for enlightenment from the esteemed article writers on LR, but the passenger handling capacity of Waterloo does seem to be close to its limit (PoP please note – I’m definitely not inviting comments concerning late platform announcements!). Not surprising really as it’s the UK’s busiest station, up to now working with a design mainly completed about 100 years ago! (do we have the passenger stats from the 1920s?) The undercroft is extensive, and those who know the subway leading to/from the platforms will be aware that it functions on two distinctly separate levels. The unmentionable short Tube to the City takes up a lot of undercroft space, but there must be huge areas down there doing not a great deal. The international platforms are now connected to the main concourse via a scaffolding bridge, but what is happening with all that space below them that used to handle the people before and after boarding and alighting?
Fandroid,
I strongly suspect a lot of your questions will be answered in next month’s Modern Railways – and, if so, you may be pleasantly surprised at the answers.
@timbeau – I have just realised the (my) problem. The photo of the 456 in your post at 15:03 came up bigger than full screen and I only saw the ends of the two facing windows closest to the adjacent car. By scrolling across, I can see exactly what you mean – and agree.
@Graham F
I’m afraid that was the only photo I could find online. Strange that there are no official photographs of this feature! (Indeed, I can’t find any of Southern’s layout, but I don’t recall it being quite that bad)
@timbeau – Where the ‘toilet seats’ are now was, in Southern/Connex days post-renovation, a significant space for wheelchairs for the disabled, so I assume that space has been provided elsewhere in the unit.
Could they use some 315 trailers from the Great Eastern once Crossrail opens to make them four carriage units?
@fandroid
“I looked out towards the higher numbered platforms and was amazed at how narrow the nearest platform ends are. With the yellow ‘stand back’ lines in place, there was only about 300mm (500mm at best) left for the travelling public to use. ”
It works though, because so few people go there. Only the driver of an outgoing train needs to go right to the end – and only people alighting from the furthest set of doors need to use the next bit (and will alight one or at most two at a time) – indeed on a 159 or 444 with doors right at the ends of the passenger compartment most alighting passengers will migrate towards the front (barrier) end of the carriage rather than backtrack, and unless the train is absolutely packed very few people will walk past twelve cars before getting on.
I have wondered about the Undercroft – a new entrance at the Westminster Bridge Road end would reduce the crowds on the concourse, distribute passengers better along the length of the trains (both outgoing and incoming) , and actually be very useful for passengers travelling to Westminster. Lambeth North tube station is less than 100 yards away.
A particular inconvenience with the existing layout is that the stairs to/from the subway are on the wrong side (i.e facing the barrier line rather than the country end of the station) of it, meaning all passengers have to pass through the bottleneck on the platform caused by the stairwell to get to either the barrier or the stairs themselves.
@Margaret Thatcher
(spare class 315 cars)
Not sure which units you are suggesting extending to 4-car, but it’s certainly a no-no for the 456s because
a) they only have one power bogie – half the number under a 455, and would be seriously underpowered if they acquired two extra trailers.
b) they were acquired specifically to make the existing eight car trains up to ten: which would not be possible if all units were to have 4 cars.
@Graham F
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JHljI9yAtF8/VMt0-oYlOXI/AAAAAAAACJ0/X7HaUrfRYrQ/s1600/P1090842.JPG
This is a refurbished 456 car looking the other way – the wheelchair space is nearer the doors (which is logical). Maybe Southern had confused two different disabilities and assumed if you used a wheelchair you were also blind and had no use for a window?
I have wondered if class 319s are reduced to 3-car, the redundant trailers might be used to replace the ex-508 trailers in the 455/7s (they are about six years older, and non-standard with the rest of the fleet), but as the 508 trailers have recently had money spent on refurbishing them I think it’s unlikely
@timbeau – “Maybe Southern had confused two different disabilities and assumed if you used a wheelchair you were also blind and had no use for a window?” – I suggest that Porterbrook might have the answer, or anyone who funded the project. I remember seeing the empty space after the toilets had been removed and wondered why there was so much of it ‘ just’ for a wheelchair. The area was beginning to look like an EPB/SUB luggage van.
I suppose it was expected that any user of that space could see e.g. a station name on the facing platform out of the window on the opposite side.
The double deck train has no friends largely because of excessive loading times, as clearly shown by Bullied’s DD stock. However
no-one seems to have considered double deck PLATFORMS to go with. Mezzanine style, in girder type materials, definitely with platform edge doors on both levels, a la the Underground, and the matching stock with doors on both levels along the sides, NOT at vestibules at the coach ends. Go on , think about it!
@Stafford. Many problems with your idea. One of them is that it would require every platform to be rebuilt, not just adding the upper level, but removing the lower one: if there were doors at both levels, the lower ones would have to be within a foot of track level. Existing double-deck trains are single-deck for big parts of their length, not just for the doors, but to make space for the wheels!
@Stafford – then there’s the small matter of the wheels. The UK loading gauge is such that any wheels and the associated running gear are sufficiently tall that they prevent anything more useable than a single deck above them. Put another way, you cannot have the imagined lower deck floor continuously low throughout the length of the vehicle,; further, because lower deck doors would, under your model, have take up space in the lowest part of the lower saloon, their vestibules would take up seating space.
BTW it is a major headache to get the punters to distribute themselves efficiently throughout the coach, separated deck boarding would multiply the problem.
As you might say,think about it!
And then there’s the small matter of providing a safe method of detraining from the upper deck in the case of emergency.
@Mike P
“And then there’s the small matter of providing a safe method of detraining from the upper deck in the case of emergency.”
The floor of an existing single-deck train is about five feet off the ground. Raising that to six or even seven would not involve a fundamental change in detraining methods. A bigger practical problem would be whether there would be sufficient headroom to stand upright on the lower deck platform.
Articulation would reduce the space taken up by the wheels, and Talgo-type independent suspension could eliminate the barriers between cars – if that were needed – is inter-car communication absolutely necessary? But I suspect extending platfomrs would be cheaper than double-decking them.
@timbeau -double decking stations would be *very* expensive. You couldn’t do it selectively unless you wanted to divide the services into single and double deck routes (and even then, there would be many shared stations), so you would have to go for line of route; for many if not most stations, that would mean a complete rebuild with all the problems of PRTMIS, PEDs upstairs, and installing mechanical access to the upper decks at every platform served. Current costs for station rebuilds not involving the track geometry suggest a range of £10-25m per platform – (Bricket Wood @ £25m, but involves lifts; Rochester @ £62m) – say,£20m per platform to include PEDs upstairs and escalators.There’s about 700 platforms on SWT,so a total cost of about 14bn might not be too far off the mark. Taking NSE as a whole, that’s about 3000 platforms or about £60bn. I can think of many better ways of spending that sort of money to increase capacity (eg 4 new Crossrails…)
[BTW, I cannot for the lifeof me see how you could organise the changeover to platform heights and rolling stock in a way that didn’t either lead to a total shut down for “some time” or extensive temporary inconveniences such as old trains calling at new depressed platforms. Away with it!]
@Stafford, et al:
The Bulleid Double Decker prototypes weren’t really double-decker trains in the modern sense. There was no clearly defined “second floor” as such; they just had an unusual, staggered compartment arrangement. (Some footage of them in action here, via YouTube.) These trains certainly had dwell time issues as a single compartment door had to handle twice the number of passengers, but you wouldn’t build something like that today anyway.
In continental Europe, double-decker trains remain a compromised design, with the actual double-decking being only part of the length of a full carriage. As you can see from that linked image, if you’re seated on the lower floor, your feet will be below the platform level, and the platforms in that picture aren’t particularly high to begin with.
These are utterly incompatible with the UK’s network: the lower floor would be badly damaged by our high(er) platforms, and few bridges and tunnels could handle their increased height. Furthermore, the carriages are about 26 metres each, which is longer than some of the UK’s network can handle. (The problem here is the overhang on curves: the longer the coach, the more it overhangs the tracks.)
Even with continental-style double deckers, you only get a 30-40% increase in capacity at best, so they’re not a panacea. For SWT, longer trains makes more sense.
(This is one of the less obvious arguments in favour of building a network of new High Speed Rail lines: it’s the only viable way to provide new rail infrastructure that meets modern standards and correct some of the legacy problems with the UK’s Victorian-era network.)