Windsor Branch line - services, rolling stock and signalling - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[grahame]

I wonder what they are using for the train staff? 

For short term working when the signals are out of order in our area, they use a chap in an orange jacket.   Probably expensive for 4 weeks, though!

[autotank]

I saw the driver carrying a hoop yesterday, which to me looked like a staff although I was a passenger on a Turbo on the down relief so didn't get a great look.

Would it not be possible to raise the line speed to reduce the journey time? For a branch just over 2.5 miles, surely a 5 minute running time should be possible? It always seems slow in and out of Slough - that curve isn't THAT tight!

[Oxonhutch]

Yes a raise from 20 mph average to 30 mph average does not seem too unreasonable.  I'll have to check the SA for the maximum line speed.

[Done - Update]

So from the Sectional Appendix p. 141, with an accel/decal rate of 1m/s², I calculate an end-to-end time of 5¹/₂ minutes (30.3 mph) - probably doable.

[rower40]

The loop is being truncated into a siding, with access only at the Slough end.

What makes operation of the Windsor line easier (once the signalling is fully in use) is that there's now a signalled route from the Up Main into Slough platform 2, without having to go via the ground-position-light signal on the Down Relief.  The empty train (coming from Reading depot) will use this each morning to get onto the Windsor branch.

[autotank]

Could this improved signalling perhaps mean later services on the branch as well? It currently finishes much earlier M-F than the Marlow and Henley branches. The last service down service is 2320 - the Henley and Marlow branches run until 2359 and 2351 respectively.

[eightf48544]

Yes a raise from 20 mph average to 30 mph average does not seem too unreasonable.  I'll have to check the SA for the maximum line speed.

[Done - Update]

So from the Sectional Appendix p. 141, with an accel/decal rate of 1m/s², I calculate an end-to-end time of 5¹/₂ minutes (30.3 mph) - probably doable.

Which reduces the return running time from 12 to 11 minutes. So gives 30 secs extra turnround time each end. I don't see how one could run a consistent 15 minute interval service with only 2 minute turnround for over 18 hours a day.

Re late trains, I thought one of the reasons for curtailing late night trains on the branch was that there were too many drunks!

There has also been talk of a coach park and ride for Windsor off the relief road between  the Jubilee River and the spur from Eton/Slough. Served by a new station on the branch.

[grahame]

I don't see how one could run a consistent 15 minute interval service with only 2 minute turnround for over 18 hours a day.

What is achieved on St Ives??

Re late trains, I thought one of the reasons for curtailing late night trains on the branch was that there were too many drunks!

In looking at the Marlow, Henley, Windsor comparison after last night's posts, I note that all 3 branches have a single connection after 22:30 from Paddington.  It just happens that with their hourly cycle, the Marlow and Henley very last train is after the Windsor very last train.

[Surrey 455]

Re late trains, I thought one of the reasons for curtailing late night trains on the branch was that there were too many drunks!

The last SWT^▸ (South West Trains) train from Riverside tonight is also about the same time - 2328 to Staines. Don't know if that's for the same reason though but a lot of inner suburban SWT routes start their last london bound journeys before midnight

Which means that when I visit Windsor with friends we all have to leave earlier than we want.

[JayMac]

The loop is being truncated into a siding, with access only at the Slough end.

Network Rail wanted rid of the loop completely as a cost saving measure. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lobbied for a headshunt/siding. Went to the Access Disputes Committee for arbitration (ADA16 at that link) and FGW prevailed.

[Louis94]

I don't see how one could run a consistent 15 minute interval service with only 2 minute turnround for over 18 hours a day.

What is achieved on St Ives??

St Ives achieves a minimum of 3 minute turnrounds, although they are not all 3 minutes - planning rules stimulate that you can't have more than three 3 minute turnrounds in a row (This applies also to Falmouth, Gunnislake, Looe, Henley, Severn Beach and Maesteg Branches in the Western Region area). This is why the calling pattern is what it is, you could have a half hourly service all calling at Lelant Saltings and Carbis Bay at 12 minutes (the booked time for it) each way if 3 minute turnrounds were allowed all day.

[stuving]

The Western Route Study simply states that only 3 tph is possible with the single line, and the cost increment of two trains and doubling (barely worth only doing it halfway) is not justifiable. It seems odd that the line speed can't be raised a bit, to get the transit time below 4.5 minutes. But it would be really frantic for the crew. Currently the peak service runs three 18-minute cycles (6+3+6+3) then has a slightly longer turnaround.

On capacity grounds, 3 tph x 4-car meets the 2043 predicted demand. The peak-hour figures are given for the branch - 515 in 2013, rising to 990 in 2043. The capacity, including standing, is 1152 with a 4-car EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from 2019 (though in that Network Change dispute NR^» (Network Rail - home page) maintained that use of a 4-car train was only a theoretical possibility).

How does that compare with the station usage figure? That's 1878961 in 2013/4, which can be divided by 50 and by 12 to give a rough per weekday each-way figure of 3150. Now one of the dispute documents said the busiest single train carried 204 passengers (the 8:54 to Windsor, surprisingly). That suggests the peak use of the line is more bidirectional than you would have expected. So we can guesstimate rather wildly at a bit more than twice the one-hour peak of 515 towards Slough, and a bit less the other way, i.e. 2000 for commuters. Then there would be 1000 or so return trips in the whole of the off-peak. So that's just about plausible.

On journey time, the other criterion used, 40 minutes to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) is the aim. Their definition of "generalised journey time" adds half (I think) the interval to the actual travel time. Initially it does look as if 3 tph does badly where there the London trains are every 15 minutes. However, if there are almost as many passengers the other way, that may not be quite how it works out.

Travel time to PAD now varies a lot - from 26 minutes to 54 minutes, but roughly once per hour there is a train that's makes no connection. If Crossrail is every 15 minutes, and takes 28 minutes to Paddington (vs 40 for some stoppers now) that will be a big improvement anyway. Of course if the semifasts are removed, the quickest journeys can't be done any more. Then there's going to be trains via Heathrow, which may be faster - or not.

[eightf48544]

Then of course there is the mythical Windsor Link which turns the branch into a dead end from Windsor at Slough!

[Electric train]

Then of course there is the mythical Windsor Link which turns the branch into a dead end from Windsor at Slough!

Bathurst !!

[stuving]

Then of course there is the mythical Windsor Link which turns the branch into a dead end from Windsor at Slough!

While now it is dead at both ends, operationally.  And of course WRAtH^▸ (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) makes that plan a dead end.

One thing that struck me about long-term plans for the branch line is that end-of-life planning for the Thames bridge may be important. If its historical status means it can't be replaced, and its strength gets too low to run trains over, that would have given a bit of weight in favour of a new line (not the line proposed). On the other hand, it would also favour closing the branch from Slough - if it happened 30 year ago that would have been the result. Assuming WRAtH is built, what do you do?

Well, another thought was that a shuttle of this length could easily be operated as one of those automatic people-mover things you find at airports. It might not be quicker end to end, but you could have loads of them with passing places to make up for it.

[Red Squirrel]

The loop is being truncated into a siding, with access only at the Slough end.

Network Rail wanted rid of the loop completely as a cost saving measure. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lobbied for a headshunt/siding. Went to the Access Disputes Committee for arbitration (ADA16 at that link) and FGW prevailed.

When I follow this link (using Firefox) I get a '404' (page not found) page. A quick scan of the uri reveals an errant '\' character; replacing this with the standards-compliant '/' resolves to the correct resource. Other browsers may be more tolerant of the malformed uri.