Southern's Timetable Reduction

[phil-b259]

Future plans for the branch are now raising new ire in the local population. In the 2018 timetable revision, which is currently being consulted upon, we stand to lose the couple of through trains to Victoria which start at Seaford, giving local people a chance of a seat. The rest of the trains have to be changed onto at Lewes and arrive with Eastbourne & Hastings passengers already ensconced in the seats.

 

And your solution is?

 

Bearing in mind that....

 

The number of trains available is fixed (by DfT)

The amount of trains the infrastructure can cope with is fixed (by the signalling system)

Train paths are pretty much fixed by the need to fit over complex junctions (e.g. Windmill Bridge).

 

Its a fact of life that not everyone can be happy - and in this incidence its a simple binary choice. Either London commuters benefit OR local commuters benefit. It is impossible to satisfy the expectations of both - and anyone saying so is talking rubbish.

 

If you have a preference please respond to the consultation and let Southern know, otherwise you cannot complain if the decision goes against you later on.

[phil_sutters]

And your solution is?

 

Bearing in mind that....

 

The number of trains available is fixed (by DfT)

The amount of trains the infrastructure can cope with is fixed (by the signalling system)

Train paths are pretty much fixed by the need to fit over complex junctions (e.g. Windmill Bridge).

 

Its a fact of life that not everyone can be happy - and in this incidence its a simple binary choice. Either London commuters benefit OR local commuters benefit. It is impossible to satisfy the expectations of both - and anyone saying so is talking rubbish.

 

If you have a preference please respond to the consultation and let Southern know, otherwise you cannot complain if the decision goes against you later on.

It is the London commuters who are losing out here. The local ones have local trains every half hour - a very good service. Because of governments' inability to do anything about the lunatic London housing market and the lack of social housing in the capital, the whole of the south coast is now a London commuter zone. Yes, we will be responding to the consultation and local shops already have very active petitions. Our local transport group will be lobbying the MPs, TOCs and local authorities.

I appreciate that scheduling and pathing services are highly technical and complicated processes, but I would maintain that having trains starting at different points and different distances from London evens out the seat availability across the region. Seaford starting London-bound trains also benefit Newhaven, but also Lewes and stations this side of Gatwick.  I don't travel at peak times, but trains starting at Eastbourne just after peaks are often very busy, so I imagine that in peak times by the time trains get to Lewes from Ore and Eastbourne seats will be scarce. If they are available I wouldn't expect local commuters to be up in arms already.

[phil-b259]

It is the London commuters who are losing out here. The local ones have local trains every half hour - a very good service. Because of governments' inability to do anything about the lunatic London housing market and the lack of social housing in the capital the whole of the south coast is now a commuter zone. Yes we will be responding to the consultation and local shops already have very active petitions. Our local transport group will be lobbying the MPs, TOCs and local authorities.

 

But at the end of the day somebody still has to lose out in some way. While I, other forum members, the local MP, etc can all express sympathy with you, that will do nothing to resolve the underlying issues which make a choice necessary in the first place. Building more affordable housing, railway infrastructure improvements and even building more trains all take time and money to organise so while you may be correct in your analysis - that will not change the immediate situation the timetable planners are facing.

 

If enough London commuters make their feelings known and locals keep quiet then the decision will go the way of commuters. If however the locals make their feelings known in grater numbers then they are the ones whose view will prevail. Much like in elections, the choice of majority is the one that will prevail and should be respected - even if you disagree with it.

 

Nobody is saying you have to agree with whatever decision is reached - but you and others need to recognise that a decision one way or another has to be made. Longer term of course things could be different - for example getting a commitment to full grade separate Windmill Bridge Junction to the north of Croydon, plus grade separation at Keymer has the potential to significantly increase the capacity of the BML and offer more London services including to and from Seaford.

[Gwiwer]

According to GTR / Southern the issue with the peak hour trains between London and Seaford is that the single line between Newhaven and Seaford cannot cope with three trains an hour.  Yet it has been doing so for years ever since it was singled.  It it tight, granted, but there is no change to the existing timetable; a portion still attaches to / detaches from an Eastbourne train at Lewes giving Seaford branch commuters a direct peak-hour London service and the chance of a seat.  

 

Southern has proposed two options.  Either retain these trains and reduce the Brighton service to one train in peak hours requiring a change at Lewes for some passengers or cut the through portions and retain the standard two-an-hour Brighton - Seaford trains.

 

It doesn't take a lot of brains to work out that the latter is their intention.  They can then run the Eastbourne trains complete without a five-minute wait to combine / divide and thereby save a little time and money.  They can say to Seaford line commuters that their journey time has not increased despite a change at Lewes.  They can maintain the Brighton service which is quite heavily used to its destination and to Falmer for the universities rather than enforcing changes and creating overloading on the Eastbourne - Brighton trains.  The equation here is that 2x3-car loads into 1x3-car from Lewes - Falmer - Brighton won't go.  Correct; it won't.

 

The service has been operating well enough for years.  What really is the motivating factor behind this proposal?

 

And why is the Seaford branch currently being staffed by redeployed managers from around the region requiring a reshuffle of other managers when that area is also said to be short-handed?  Just what sort of pantomime are GTR performing here?

[cromptonnut]

Reigate has also had direct services to London for years and they're trying to turn that into a Reigate-Redhill shuttle service in the 2018 timetable as well.

 

Regarding joining/splitting, that requires platform staff suitably trained to oversee the process.  My guess is that's another cut that hasn't been announced yet.

[Coryton]

Reigate has also had direct services to London for years and they're trying to turn that into a Reigate-Redhill shuttle service in the 2018 timetable as well.

 

Regarding joining/splitting, that requires platform staff suitably trained to oversee the process.  My guess is that's another cut that hasn't been announced yet.

 

Any trains joining will have a driver on each train. If someone is needed on the platform, couldn't one stand on the platform and the other drive one of the trains to couple them?

 

I'm fairly sure I've seen trains with automatic couplers couple in Germany with no staff on the platform.

[Gwiwer]

One driver must be in the leading cab and remain there.  It is their responsibility to ensure the train remains behind the signal.  The second portion will require that driver to shunt on under the supervision of qualified platform staff.  The same in reverse with a split even though the rear portion shunts back rather than the front portion easing forwards.  There is far less chance of a backwards movement of less than half a metre over-running a signal in the rear than of a run forward creating a SPAD.

 

At least we don't have to do it the Australian way.  They make all the passengers from both units disembark before the shunt and rejoin later.  Southern manage with a 5-minute stop (though it was 2 - 3 with the 1963 types before computers had to synchronise) while in some Aussie locations you're waiting for 10 - 15 minutes and might lose your seat into the bargain.  If only we could get back to the days of 3-minute allowances for a join and 2 for a split either of which could usually be achieved in half those times or better.

[phil_sutters]

It also shows they were prepared to spend money to prevent more inconvenience to passengers/more bad publicity (delete where applicable) if things went wrong.

 

That or somebody forgot to cancel the buses...

The contract runs to the end of this week apparently - so they are wasting diesel and allowing fare dodgers free trips on the buses!

 

Later -- I have just seen one passing Newhaven station towards Southease - totally empty - and I'll bet it had been up to the Harbour station - at which I have never seen anyone use the replacement buses, even when they were the only thing on offer.

[Gwiwer]

Reigate has also had direct services to London for years and they're trying to turn that into a Reigate-Redhill shuttle service in the 2018 timetable as well.

 

Regarding joining/splitting, that requires platform staff suitably trained to oversee the process.  My guess is that's another cut that hasn't been announced yet.

 

 

On the money I reckon.  They are also proposing to divert the Sunday Victoria - Southampton trains via Horsham instead of via Hove which matches the Monday - Saturday service.  What that means is that they can get away with running 4-car potions between Haywards Heath and Littlehampton on Sundays as well as weekdays and create overcrowding into the deal whilst removing platform staff (qualified to split / join trains) from Worthing on a Sunday which is the only day of the week they are needed there.  Those duties would move to Horsham so no doubt Southern will bleat "No job losses" when the reality would be Horsham staff gaining Sunday shifts at Worthing;s expense.  And Worthing then has no need of that skill and can de-skill its staff reducing their wages into the bargain.  They are also proposing that the booking office at Worthing be closed on Sundays; this leads me to believe they intend that a single person shall be in charge of the station which is woeful and probably dangerous understaffing for a large, quite busy three-platform station.

[Brian Kirby]

According to GTR / Southern the issue with the peak hour trains between London and Seaford is that the single line between Newhaven and Seaford cannot cope with three trains an hour.  Yet it has been doing so for years ever since it was singled.  It it tight, granted, but there is no change to the existing timetable; a portion still attaches to / detaches from an Eastbourne train at Lewes giving Seaford branch commuters a direct peak-hour London service and the chance of a seat.  

 

Southern has proposed two options.  Either retain these trains and reduce the Brighton service to one train in peak hours requiring a change at Lewes for some passengers or cut the through portions and retain the standard two-an-hour Brighton - Seaford trains.

 

Is there no chance of double-track being restored beyond Newhaven, at least as far as Bishopstone or bringing the second platform at Seaford back into operation (or both), capacity is being increased all over the network, this would be quite modest? Failing that, during peak hours why not run one of the Brightons only as far as Newhaven, allowing one London train to Seaford per hour, surely it's important to keep through trains to Newhaven, for the ferry connection, and to keep Seaford commuters happy?

   I recall the uncoupling of CIG, etc. units at Hayward's Heath, passengers would be allowed on and off first and persons on-board instructed to remain seated, all doors would be closed, cables and pipes dis-connected, then a driver would enter the rear cab of the front section to be (would that be with the original driver still at the front or would he perform the shunt?), platform staff would pull the coupling release, and the front unit would be vigorously jerked back and forth, to disengage the buckeye, then the front section was allowed to glide forward a few yards. Now there were two trains. For re-coupling in the other direction, they would stop the rear section in the platform, just behind the front, allow people on and off, then shut all doors and call out the warning, the rear unit would slam into the front unit, again doing a jiggle back and fro to ensure the buckeyes were engaged, brakes on, pipes connected, then test. Re-coupling at Woking always seemed smoother!

                                                                                     Cheers, Brian.

[The Stationmaster]

Reigate has also had direct services to London for years and they're trying to turn that into a Reigate-Redhill shuttle service in the 2018 timetable as well.

 

Regarding joining/splitting, that requires platform staff suitably trained to oversee the process.  My guess is that's another cut that hasn't been announced yet.

 

The problem with joining and splitting portions is that it is an area which can reduce service reliability and potentially cost extra rolling stock and Driver resources - so it is simpler to do away with it.  Whether that is what they have in mind or whether it is platform staff economy is difficult to tell but when you have poor overall performance then simplification of your timetable has definite attractions and is probably one of the courses I would follow if looking to improve train performance.  

 

But - as pointed out - it does have a  potential downside for passengers as they lose through trains.

[cromptonnut]

But - as pointed out - it does have a  potential downside for passengers as they lose through trains.

 

Of course, with the new "700" series of fixed 8 and 12 car formations on the BML there will be no splitting of those anyway.  Hence I'm sure most of the Redhill splitters (for Tonbridge and/or Reigate) will be lost as through trains.

[Gwiwer]

I never understood the logic in singling the Seaford branch in the first place though it was done at a time of falling traffic and when there was an outside chance that it might have closed entirely.  Newhaven boat traffic has declined and vanished.  Power limitations are an ongoing issue I believe as Seaford is a single-end feed meaning long trains are not an option and there's precious little current for two to run together beyond Newhaven.

 

I can't see a problem with one of the Brightons becoming a Newhaven once or twice in the peaks.  It would inconvenience a few passengers from Seaford and Bishopstone but not as many as will be inconvenienced if Southern get their way and enforce changes at Lewes into already-full trains.  

 

I have never approved of the current modus operandi whereby the east and west coast routes each have a half-hourly direct train of four cars with the split / attach at Haywards Heath.  That has created overcrowding sometimes to dangerous levels and extended journey times to match pre-electrification timings of over 80 years ago.  The dwell time at Haywards Heath is used to allow Brighton expresses to run through and allegedly increases line capacity by so doing. It isn't beyond the bounds of sanity to simply exchange paths and have an 8 (or ideally 12) car train running complete to each coastal route hourly as always used to be the case.  Most of them were 12-car until the Electrostars arrived though with a unit detached at Worthing and Eastbourne as longer trains posed problems beyond those locations and the capacity wasn't needed outside peak times.  

 

I have even suggested to Southern that a 12-car train once an hour offers more seats than a 4-car train every half hour to which they replied that no, it doesn't, because the existing trains run twice an hour.  The arithmetic does not add up.  Someone in Southern is spinning fog which I can see straight through.

[Gwiwer]

Of course, with the new "700" series of fixed 8 and 12 car formations on the BML there will be no splitting of those anyway.  Hence I'm sure most of the Redhill splitters (for Tonbridge and/or Reigate) will be lost as through trains.

The 700 class is operated by Thameslink.  Most (all?) Reigate and Tonbridge services are operated by Southern.  The argument about splitting 700s is irrelevant in this context.  Services will remain in the hands of 377s.

[bescotbeast]

I never understood the logic in singling the Seaford branch in the first place though it was done at a time of falling traffic and when there was an outside chance that it might have closed entirely.  Newhaven boat traffic has declined and vanished.  Power limitations are an ongoing issue I believe as Seaford is a single-end feed meaning long trains are not an option and there's precious little current for two to run together beyond Newhaven.

 

I can't see a problem with one of the Brightons becoming a Newhaven once or twice in the peaks.  It would inconvenience a few passengers from Seaford and Bishopstone but not as many as will be inconvenienced if Southern get their way and enforce changes at Lewes into already-full trains.  

 

I have never approved of the current modus operandi whereby the east and west coast routes each have a half-hourly direct train of four cars with the split / attach at Haywards Heath.  That has created overcrowding sometimes to dangerous levels and extended journey times to match pre-electrification timings of over 80 years ago.  The dwell time at Haywards Heath is used to allow Brighton expresses to run through and allegedly increases line capacity by so doing. It isn't beyond the bounds of sanity to simply exchange paths and have an 8 (or ideally 12) car train running complete to each coastal route hourly as always used to be the case.  Most of them were 12-car until the Electrostars arrived though with a unit detached at Worthing and Eastbourne as longer trains posed problems beyond those locations and the capacity wasn't needed outside peak times.  

 

I have even suggested to Southern that a 12-car train once an hour offers more seats than a 4-car train every half hour to which they replied that no, it doesn't, because the existing trains run twice an hour.  The arithmetic does not add up.  Someone in Southern is spinning fog which I can see straight through.

The power supply along the Seaford branch was boosted lat year I believe, as well as extending Seaford platform to accommodate the 8 car trains run for the football at Falmer.

Your comments regarding Lewes station and the possibility of de-staffing to me have a ring of truth and will no doubt the next in line for cuts after dealing the the Conductors.

Speaking with a friend of mine who's a Conductor for Cross Country, I urged him to get out of the grade as quick as he could and get a drivers job, I told him that what's happening with Southern will work it's way to his franchise some time soon. 

[Brian Kirby]

Of course the Achilles' heel of splitting trains going south, is will both sections get back in time to re-unite, there is plenty of chance of delay? Logic suggests that the first one back for re-unification, has to spend proportionally more time "dwelling" at the station, awaiting it's other half, so the length of journey time is extended for the first service that arrives back. Presumably Traffic Control/powerbox would be overseeing the performance of the two halves, giving up waiting and sending only half the train to London would play havoc with the schedule for the rest of the day, cancellation is an option. Life is of course easier with fixed trains, but then they could be less than half-empty nearer the coast, which is a waste. There lies the conundrum.   BK

[phil-b259]

Of course the Achilles' heel of splitting trains going south, is will both sections get back in time to re-unite, there is plenty of chance of delay? Logic suggests that the first one back for re-unification, has to spend proportionally more time "dwelling" at the station, awaiting it's other half, so the length of journey time is extended for the first service that arrives back. Presumably Traffic Control/powerbox would be overseeing the performance of the two halves, giving up waiting and sending only half the train to London would play havoc with the schedule for the rest of the day, cancellation is an option. Life is of course easier with fixed trains, but then they could be less than half-empty nearer the coast, which is a waste. There lies the conundrum.   BK

 

Perhaps its worth re-reading the London Reconections article. One of the key reasons identified for Southerns bad performance BEFORE the dispute kicked off was not enough dwell time was allowed at East Croydon for passengers to board and alight, which then had a knock on effect at Windmill Bridge Junction - which also had too many trains pathed through it to work reliably. In the next few years with Thameslink linking 3 main lines, it is essential that train throughput in this area is robust.

 

Thus simply saying something has worked fine decades may well be ignoring several problems that have been developing over the years. Rail passenger growth (and thus dwell times) have been steadily increasing over the years - OK the odd second here, the odd second there may not sound light much but by the time you get close to London all those seconds have built up and can make quite a difference.

[phil-b259]

According to GTR / Southern the issue with the peak hour trains between London and Seaford is that the single line between Newhaven and Seaford cannot cope with three trains an hour.  Yet it has been doing so for years ever since it was singled.  It it tight, granted, but there is no change to the existing timetable; a portion still attaches to / detaches from an Eastbourne train at Lewes giving Seaford branch commuters a direct peak-hour London service and the chance of a seat.  

 

Southern has proposed two options.  Either retain these trains and reduce the Brighton service to one train in peak hours requiring a change at Lewes for some passengers or cut the through portions and retain the standard two-an-hour Brighton - Seaford trains.

 

It doesn't take a lot of brains to work out that the latter is their intention.  They can then run the Eastbourne trains complete without a five-minute wait to combine / divide and thereby save a little time and money.  They can say to Seaford line commuters that their journey time has not increased despite a change at Lewes.  They can maintain the Brighton service which is quite heavily used to its destination and to Falmer for the universities rather than enforcing changes and creating overloading on the Eastbourne - Brighton trains.  The equation here is that 2x3-car loads into 1x3-car from Lewes - Falmer - Brighton won't go.  Correct; it won't.

 

The service has been operating well enough for years.  What really is the motivating factor behind this proposal?

 

And why is the Seaford branch currently being staffed by redeployed managers from around the region requiring a reshuffle of other managers when that area is also said to be short-handed?  Just what sort of pantomime are GTR performing here?

 

Perhaps its simply that the stock can be better deployed elsewhere. For example you yourself say how dividing trains at Haywards Heath leads to overcrowding further south. If you don't send 4 cars to Seaford, then either Littlehampton or Eastbourne can get 8 cars. If there there are sizeable numbers of passengers from either destination that have to stand, yet the Seaford portion arrives at Lewes with seats to spare then losing the Seaford portion makes operational sense.

 

Yes Seaford commuters are annoyed, but conversely Worthing commuters say, are pleased with the result.

 

Given line capacity is fixed and the train fleet is fixed, matching stock to demand will not mean everybody gets what they want. It also stands to reason that given population growth is not uniform, what may have worked well 20 years ago is not the most suitable solution now and stipulating that things must stay the same (as Wimbledon loop commuters achieved with their Thameslink services) actually ends up making things worse, not better in the long term.

[phil-b259]

I never understood the logic in singling the Seaford branch in the first place though it was done at a time of falling traffic and when there was an outside chance that it might have closed entirely.  Newhaven boat traffic has declined and vanished.  Power limitations are an ongoing issue I believe as Seaford is a single-end feed meaning long trains are not an option and there's precious little current for two to run together beyond Newhaven.

 

I can't see a problem with one of the Brightons becoming a Newhaven once or twice in the peaks.  It would inconvenience a few passengers from Seaford and Bishopstone but not as many as will be inconvenienced if Southern get their way and enforce changes at Lewes into already-full trains.  

 

I have never approved of the current modus operandi whereby the east and west coast routes each have a half-hourly direct train of four cars with the split / attach at Haywards Heath.  That has created overcrowding sometimes to dangerous levels and extended journey times to match pre-electrification timings of over 80 years ago.  The dwell time at Haywards Heath is used to allow Brighton expresses to run through and allegedly increases line capacity by so doing. It isn't beyond the bounds of sanity to simply exchange paths and have an 8 (or ideally 12) car train running complete to each coastal route hourly as always used to be the case.  Most of them were 12-car until the Electrostars arrived though with a unit detached at Worthing and Eastbourne as longer trains posed problems beyond those locations and the capacity wasn't needed outside peak times.  

 

I have even suggested to Southern that a 12-car train once an hour offers more seats than a 4-car train every half hour to which they replied that no, it doesn't, because the existing trains run twice an hour.  The arithmetic does not add up.  Someone in Southern is spinning fog which I can see straight through.

 

My relatives live in Eastbourne and they are pissed off (to put it mildly) at the thought of losing their half hourly London service that has been in place for many years now. Indeed said service frequency is well patronised whenever I have been on it suggesting that demand is there for a half hourly service on the route.

 

I also contend that regular travellers from Worthing probably feel the same and would be most annoyed at having to go via Brighton to get to London if they are not able to get the remaining hourly service your plan provides.

 

Its all very well saying that running 12 car trains would provide more seats - but its been established for a number of years running longer trains doesn't generate much more patronage. To do that you require more frequent services - for example simply adding an extra unit to the Falmouth branch would have made very little difference to ridership, but the addition of a passing loop and the doubling of the service frequency has seen passenger numbers skyrocket. Similarly with Cross Country - it was the significant increase in frequency on the core routes that increased passenger numbers, not simply new trains or the London Overground routes where enhanced frequencies attracted large numbers of extra passengers.

 

The thing is the more frequent a train service - the more akin it becomes to simply jumping in your car (which is a true 'turn up and go' experience).

 

So from Southern's perspective, while going back to an hourly service gives more seats it negatively affects patronage.

 

Of course one answer is to run an extra train from Littlehampton / Eastbourne as far as Haywards Heath where it would connect with the 12 car train to London. The problem is that the track layout and signalling at Haywards Heath is not suited to terminating trains there - which is of course the reason the 1930s Southern Railway extended electrification to Horsted Keynes!

[stewartingram]

Slightly OT, but I think relted.

I've just been in the Huntingdon Tesco & seen the headlines on the local newspaper. Apparently the local commuters/media is now gunning for action with Great Northern (part of the same Govia TOC). They are claiming a recent bad performance of train cancellations etc.

Now, as a regular GN commuter, though on the KLN branch nowadays (used to be on the PBO and still an occasional user), I've always taken the sensible view that the service is generally good, with occasional unavoidable incidents. It has annoyed me somewhat when the media or whoever have slated FCC and now GN for their service and referred to the Thameslink TOC (which of course it is as they are contractually combined though seperate services). I'm aware there have been issues with Thameslink (and sensibility says to me there always will be due to its route complexity), but can't comment as I'm not a user. However the GN services I've found pretty good overall, even better since I swapped to Ely as my home station. Here I benefit from 1/2 hourly fasts between Cambridge and KGX; these usually form the extensions to KLN via Ely. There are also slows to CBG which I ignore as the next fast is not far behind. Also there are multiple TOCS between CBG & Ely. Ignoring outside problems (ie NR related incidents etc), a true GN problem usually means the next train is 1/2hr later....hardly a big deal! Usually, actually quicker than Plan B, which is use LST and the GA route instead which is slower. (This also has more choices as I can use Stansted Express & Cross Country).

Anyway, the point is, it seems that the anti-Govia brigade are upping their game. Interesting times ahead?

 

Stewart

[Gwiwer]

Just to clarify any misunderstanding as I introduced another line of argument above.  The Seaford / Eastbourne trains do not convey a Littlehampton portion.  They should be 12 cars north of Haywards Heath with 8 to / from Eastbourne and 4 to / from Seaford.  At peak times the Littlehampton via Hove trains, which should be 12-car but are often 8-car, run compete with no split.

 

Brian's argument about delays caused by one portion are valid and this arises from time to time.  It should be easier with modern signalling centres to oversee the big picture and regulate trains to minimise these delays.  From my experience, which goes back to 1968 though hasn't been everyday save for a couple of years, there have been remarkably few cases of more than 2 - 3 minutes delay and usually none at all.  One feature of modern signalling is that there is far greater flank protection which means the second portion will sight caution aspects and have it speed reduced from much farther back than was the case under semaphore working.  No longer can a rear unit run into the platform at almost line speed, brakes full on and pull up six inches short of the one ahead.  It must creep in from sometimes a mile away.  Failure to do so will now trigger an intervention by TPWS.  This of course adds to the time taken for the whole operation and affects overall line capacity.  On the Brighton main line capacity is critical and seconds make all the difference.

 

If the wider customer base will not willingly accept a return to 12-car hourly trains to each coast then perhaps more use could be made of the 5-car units.  The seats are harder than in the 4-car sets but two 5-car units will give something like a 20% capacity boost.  Keeping to diagram is not always easy however and some of the 8-car diagrams gain another unit at peak times to become 12-car which cannot happen if a five-car unit is in the train.  I understnad there are technical reasons why four 377/3 units cannot be run together and possibly an issue of overall length by an inch or two.  All those cabs also cost seats but again pairs of three-car units which form part of a 12-car train will still offer more seats than a single 4-car unit.

[phil_sutters]

Is there no chance of double-track being restored beyond Newhaven, at least as far as Bishopstone or bringing the second platform at Seaford back into operation (or both), capacity is being increased all over the network, this would be quite modest? Failing that, during peak hours why not run one of the Brightons only as far as Newhaven, allowing one London train to Seaford per hour, surely it's important to keep through trains to Newhaven, for the ferry connection, and to keep Seaford commuters happy?

   I recall the uncoupling of CIG, etc. units at Hayward's Heath, passengers would be allowed on and off first and persons on-board instructed to remain seated, all doors would be closed, cables and pipes dis-connected, then a driver would enter the rear cab of the front section to be (would that be with the original driver still at the front or would he perform the shunt?), platform staff would pull the coupling release, and the front unit would be vigorously jerked back and forth, to disengage the buckeye, then the front section was allowed to glide forward a few yards. Now there were two trains. For re-coupling in the other direction, they would stop the rear section in the platform, just behind the front, allow people on and off, then shut all doors and call out the warning, the rear unit would slam into the front unit, again doing a jiggle back and fro to ensure the buckeyes were engaged, brakes on, pipes connected, then test. Re-coupling at Woking always seemed smoother!

                                                                                     Cheers, Brian.

surely it's important to keep through trains to Newhaven, for the ferry connection, 

 

The ferries are only two - one in the day and one at night, during most of the year. I think they have been running an  additional ferry in the summer months and that was going to Le Havre. I would guess that there is very little traffic that comes by rail. You rarely see foot passengers at all, it's mostly Spanish & Portugese trucks, cars and caravans.

I have yet had a chance to look at the details of the proposals, beyond the Seaford branch. Are they going to stop joining and splitting trains at Haywards Heath? Eastbourne/Ore trains often have to split from Littlehampton ones there.

[phil-b259]

 

If the wider customer base will not willingly accept a return to 12-car hourly trains to each coast then perhaps more use could be made of the 5-car units.  The seats are harder than in the 4-car sets but two 5-car units will give something like a 20% capacity boost.  Keeping to diagram is not always easy however and some of the 8-car diagrams gain another unit at peak times to become 12-car which cannot happen if a five-car unit is in the train.  I understnad there are technical reasons why four 377/3 units cannot be run together and possibly an issue of overall length by an inch or two.  All those cabs also cost seats but again pairs of three-car units which form part of a 12-car train will still offer more seats than a single 4-car unit.

 

An interesting thought - but I believe that during weekdays all the 5 car units are required for metro services. Since the 456 units went to SWT the only way 10 car suburban trains can be achieved is with two 5 car units (or two 3 car units plus one 4 car). As you say there is an issue with 4x 3 car 377s working together (not unrelated to why Bombardier cannot make a 377 unit longer than 5 cars I believe) but it could be an option if further stock was procured (a stand alone order is unlikely, but could be tagged on the end of a 313 or 455 replacement for example).

 

At weekends the 5 car units do appear on runs to Brighton, but I believe this is done mainly for technical and rolling stock maintenance issues across the Southern fleet.

[phil-b259]

 

Brian's argument about delays caused by one portion are valid and this arises from time to time.  It should be easier with modern signalling centres to oversee the big picture and regulate trains to minimise these delays.  From my experience, which goes back to 1968 though hasn't been everyday save for a couple of years, there have been remarkably few cases of more than 2 - 3 minutes delay and usually none at all.  One feature of modern signalling is that there is far greater flank protection which means the second portion will sight caution aspects and have it speed reduced from much farther back than was the case under semaphore working.  No longer can a rear unit run into the platform at almost line speed, brakes full on and pull up six inches short of the one ahead.  It must creep in from sometimes a mile away.  Failure to do so will now trigger an intervention by TPWS.  This of course adds to the time taken for the whole operation and affects overall line capacity.  On the Brighton main line capacity is critical and seconds make all the difference.

 

 

In a way you are right - but if operators then try and run a service grater than that which the signalling designers envisaged (as is currently the case with the BML) modern signalling doesn't help - in fact as you highlight it tends to make things worse as standards have changed and become more restrictive.

 

As I previously highlighted however the signalling system is one of those 'fixed' items that, as regards the current consultation, cannot be changed. Just as additional rolling stock or extra traincrew cannot be magicked up out of thin air (though the lead time for procuring both is obvious a lot less than signalling alterations), dwell times are also a 'fixed' factor - because the number of passengers boarding / alighting is unlikely to get any less (in fact its likely to get more if current trends continue) in the coming months / years.

 

Hence when looked at critically, those drawing up the timetable don't have much room to manoeuvrer and are thus forced to consult on a rather timid set of options - some of which seem, to an outsider to the process, as offering a worse service than went before

[Gwiwer]

surely it's important to keep through trains to Newhaven, for the ferry connection, 

 

The ferries are only two - one in the day and one at night, during most of the year. I think they have been running an  additional ferry in the summer months and that was going to Le Havre. I would guess that there is very little traffic that comes by rail. You rarely see foot passengers at all, it's mostly Spanish & Portugese trucks, cars and caravans.

I have yet had a chance to look at the details of the proposals, beyond the Seaford branch. Are they going to stop joining and splitting trains at Haywards Heath? Eastbourne/Ore trains often have to split from Littlehampton ones there.

 

 

I very much doubt if there is any ferry traffic now using rail other than a very occasional one or two passengers.  Newhaven Marine remains firmly closed though I believe part of the branch remains available as a turnback siding.  The unadvertised service which used to run to and from Brighton hasn't done so that I am aware of for several years now.  Boat trains to and from London are a distant memory.

 

There is no proposal to alter the current arrangement whereby the half-hourly Victoria - Coastway trains split / combine at Haywards Heath other than some tweaking of stopping patterns.  That took effect on the Littlehampton portions this year when the Preston Park, Portslade and Lancing stops were all moved to one train with the other serving Burgess Hill but none of the others.  That has cut a couple of minutes off the journey time but nothing noticeable.  The timings are arranged such that the slower portion is the front one from Haywards Heath while the "faster" one (with fewer stops but taking the same overall time) is on the back and follows the Eastbourne unit out having had rather longer waiting after the split than its opposite number.  It works.  Some people only use the "fast" train.  

 

What is proposed for change is that the portions which work through to Ore will terminate at Hastings instead.  Southern already provides an hourly Brighton - Ore train and the hope is that SE will extend their Charing Cross service to Ore to replace the Victoria trains.  Also this year Plumpton gained an hourly all-day service, previously peak-hours only, which was requested but is not being well used.  Cooksbridge is asking for the same.  The proposal is to have one of the trains stop alternately at either Plumpton or Cooksbridge (so served every two hours) and the other at neither as now.  Some peak trains would continue to serve all stations as now.  

 

The Mid-Sussex stops on these trains were added for pathing purposes as much as anything though it became convenient to retain them at Preston Park for a time when no other Southern service called for much of the day.  They are only very lightly used at Preston Park and Burgess Hill as there are close alternatives.  The Hassocks stops were moved to the fast Brighton - Victoria trains.  For a couple of years if one was in the "wrong" portion it felt like the train stopped at all stations south of Gatwick. It didn't, of course, but only a few were missed.  Even East Worthing retains its through up and down trains to Victoria.  Not though for commuters to the City but for afternoon schools traffic for which the local half-hourly class 313 is hopelessly inadequate.  They even widened the platforms there as well due to persistent overcrowding issues.