how are extra services at stations determined? e.g. longcross

[whole diary]

[johngreg]

Given that a number of new houses are currently being built at longcross and many more are planned as part of the garden village scheme (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/longcross-garden-village-government-backing-12399767) what is the process by which more rail services to longcross rail station would be determined?

[ChrisB]

Would be determined on the amount of money coming from developers through the planning process. The county council's transport dept would be consulted as to what service level might be appropriate & fed into this process

[ellendune]

Are we talking about stopping more services that already pass through or more trains?

I would have thought it would be very difficult to fit in more trains, but the existing ones are being lengthened. 

[stuving]

If the station needs to be upgraded or expanded, council or developer's money might help to get that done quicker. But have extra stops on existing trains been paid for, either as a on-off payment or a continuing subsidy, before? I don't think so.

Operationally, extra stops make the journey longer, of course. Already there a few other skipped calls to help make up time, but if that pushes a 30 minute interval to an hour it's obviously not popular. But come the new franchise there will be four tph all day, and that gives a lot more scope for varying stopping patterns. We may even get trains as fast as they were 50 years ago! 

[stuving]

There is a plan for 4 tph in the Wessex Route Study of 2015, which is presumably the basis of the requirement in the new franchise. From P 90 it includes:

5.5.6 This example service specification improves the level of connectivity to central London from a number of stations.

Bracknell, Wokingham and Reading: 4tph to London Waterloo (+2tph), with an overall improvement in average journey time

2tph to Reading (only calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Ascot, Bracknell, Wokingham and Reading) - three stops less than the current standard pattern

2tph to Reading (calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Putney, Brentford, Hounslow, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Ascot, Martins Heron and all stations to Reading) - currently there are a few evening peak trains via Hounslow, and they are about ten minutes slower.

Later it is noted that: The proposed service specification reduces the level of connectivity on  some small non-London flows, for example, between Winnersh or Martin’s Heron and Twickenham or Richmond.

The through Aldershot service via Ascot, which also runs via Longcross, will in this plan be 2 tph all day rather than peaks only. Its pattern is given as:

2tph to Aldershot (only calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Ascot, then all stations to Aldershot)

So, how many stops at Longcross do you see? Yes, none. The station is not even mentioned in the text, and appears on the service diagram as a name with no calls marked.  As there's nothing saying it's going to be closed, it must get some trains. Obviously the planners felt it would make their tidy pictures a bit messy, so left it out. But logically, if you are planning for more passengers, you should expect usage to go up a lot at some stations which few use now.

At the moment Longcross gets more stops than I had realised - 3 up/6 down in the morning, 2 down/6 up in the evening, and a couple during the day. The times are rather odd, not fitting any obvious commuting route. There are more than there were in 2000, and at different times. So calling patterns have always adjusted to usage, and that is what will happen in the future too.

If a stop has to be taken out, it will inevitably be a much busier station, not just initially but for the foreseeable future. If it is only one tph, it upsets that nice regular pattern, and if 2 tph it's slowing the trains down again. While the best choice would be one further in, which is served by other stopping trains, that proposed pattern has taken almost all of those out. So I'm sure a solution will be found, and I suspect it will mean more stops (perhaps alternating with some other newly-busy station) and slower trains.

[grahame]

Theory. If you're setting up a significant new community within catchment of a railway service, that railway service needs to be assured as "adequate++" for journeys to be made as the first residences are sold / lets agreed, and operating from the point that the early people move in.  It may be that train (or bus - same thing applies) service initially runs with very limited passenger numbers indeed, but the need's there for it to be there to ensure that people who move to the area won't be limited to those who use other means of transport (private car access provide from day one, right?) .

Adequate++ for Longcross?  I don't know - but there's a the need for (I'm sure it's been done) a community analysis of what's initially needed and where it might lead as all the accommodation is taken, and indeed later on as the community gets settled. And what needs to be provided is somewhere in excess of the minimum that such an analysis suggests and below the maximum that the railway can provide, with a hope that the minimum need isn't in excess of the maximum provision, which would be a bit of a problem.

[grahame]

If the station needs to be upgraded or expanded, council or developer's money might help to get that done quicker. But have extra stops on existing trains been paid for, either as a on-off payment or a continuing subsidy, before? I don't think so. 

That's a very specific question ... extra buses, extra stops on buses and route diversions / extensions yes.  Rail station improvements, yes, and other improvement to increase capacity / services, for example:

https://www.bradford.gov.uk/media/3054/menston_spd_section_6.pdf

6.59 Public Transport Capacity
The Baseline study and consultation responses have highlighted the lack of existing capacity on the Airedale and Wharfedale line at peak times. The developments at Derry Hill and Bingley Road will further reduce this capacity. Through the High Royds Section 278 agreement financial resources have been secured to bid to increase train services. On the basis of this precedent the development of the sites will be required to contribute a commuted sum to increase train services.

There's a scattering of things that have been done, but I'm not aware of a precedent for exactly what you're asking.   What about any extra funding for extra stops at Copplestone - long shot question.

[stuving]

Returning the the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter)'s actual question, which was about the process and mechanisms for increasing services at Longcross, the obvious place to look is really the franchise. We are now right at the start of the cycle, with a minimum service (SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment)) published for this year's new franchise. Here's what it says:

The number of services is the same, except for the 2 tph Guildford via Aldershot. These are only shown from Ascot to Guildford, with a note saying:
2tph every 30 mins between second and penultimate train departures. ... Bidders may extend services at either end of the route and split the service at AHT as noted below.

Longcross is shown with no tph and this note:
Bidders are required to stop a minimum number of trains equal to the December 2015 quantum in each direction. Bidders may stop up to 2tph to meet local passenger and/or stakeholder need on demonstration of a good business case in their bid.
               
This note applies overall:

The service pattern described above is a mimimum requirement. Bidders may run as many additional services as they deem appropriate to meet their passenger/stakeholder needs and/or enhance the value of their bid.

I'm not sure why a bidder has to justify adding more services a bid time with a "good business case"  - though obviously it shows some kind of competence. But that word "stakeholder" (taken in its common post-Thatcher sense) does suggest the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) can pass the hat round. On the other hand, "enhance the value of their bid" hints, if no more, that they should keep quiet about it in their bid.

I don't believe I've seen the 2015 quanta defined anywhere; you'll need to just look at a timetable.

[stuving]

For comparison with today's service at Longcross, here is what was required at the start of the franchise just finishing. (It's in SLC1 - there was an SLC2, though I'm not sure what it was for.)

4. Limited Stops
4.1 Longcross
On Mondays to Fridays, Longcross shall also be served as follows:
(a) Between 0700 and 1000 by a service from London Waterloo.
(b) Between 1500 and 1830 by a service from Reading.
(c) Between 0630 and 1000 by a direct service to London Waterloo, which
need not have originated at Reading.
(d) Between 1530 and 1900 by a direct service from London Waterloo,
which may continue to a destination other than Reading.

There are a lot more now - - 3 up/6 down in the morning, 2 down/7 up in the evening, and one each way around midday (taking a slightly different view from last night).

[paul7575]

(It's in SLC1 - there was an SLC2, though I'm not sure what it was for.)

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the 2007 SWT^▸ (South West Trains) franchise SLC1 was just maintaining the status quo until the next convenient timetable date to introduce the changes that were agreed, and that was Dec 2007?   So SLC1 only ran for about 10 months?

Paul

[stuving]

(It's in SLC1 - there was an SLC2, though I'm not sure what it was for.)

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the 2007 SWT^▸ (South West Trains) franchise SLC1 was just maintaining the status quo until the next convenient timetable date to introduce the changes that were agreed, and that was Dec 2007?   So SLC1 only ran for about 10 months?

Paul

I think so - there are a couple of items in the text marked with "SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) 1 ONLY (up to and including 8 December 2007)". What I meant really is that I couldn't find SLC2 on-line anywhere. I now have it, - and for Longcross it's identical.

Or almost: there is now a note about timings, which says "Journey time may be extended by two minutes when services call at Longcross". Reasonable enough, except it's in the column headed "Sunday". I think that's just a silly mistake!