WTT138

[Dstock7080]

Nov 20, 2009 4:14:01 GMT Colin said:

Whilst turning a late running Ealing train at Acton Town is possible, via 26 siding to the west of the station, it will have an impact on the Piccadilly line and it is therefore not a routine reversal move - in fact in the 5 years I've been driving on the District, I never known a D stock to go in there.

I'm sure this would be quite difficult, as it would have to run down the fast from Barons Court for starters.
Then anything west of Hammersmith on the local couldn't reverse at Acton Town.

[Dstock7080]

Nov 20, 2009 4:26:10 GMT @theonekea said:

Regarding the difficulties inherent in turning trains at Gunnersbury, I wonder if a reversal there would be easier if the existing trailing crossover on the London side of the station were supplemented with a central reversing siding on the Richmond side of the station. The former four-track alignment provides plenty of space that could be used to get a siding of sufficient length for S7s and 378s, and with the station now under the TLC of LO, staff should be available to assist with reversals.

Would that make it easier to write a timetable like WTT138?

A recent Gunnersbury reversal, 4mins max.
tinyurl.com/yl4tp2q

[Colin]

Nov 20, 2009 10:32:17 GMT @shedcompnodosh said:

Where I get the additional 10+ minutes on an Upminster-Wimbledon rounder from is the "link time allowance data" that was actually used to compile the timetable itself, as opposed to comparing trips between WTT's.

A friend in the TTO showed me this yesterday.

It lists each section between stations and between which time bands (if any) trains have an RTV applied to them. (Run Time Variation, above and beyond the base run time)

I did quote the word 'rounder', you appear to be looking at one way trips in your comparisons!

In which case I apologise as I have to admit I misread what you wrote and got the wrong end of the stick. However....

Nov 20, 2009 10:32:17 GMT @shedcompnodosh said:

As for Wimbledon layovers, they will always remain comparitvely low when compared to EBY/RMD, as TTO will always attempt (I'm sure there are some recent examples where they may not, early or late, before someone pulls me up on it!) to avoid inverted layovers at Wimbledon between C & D, therefore the D stocks to WDN need to pretty much match the layovers of the C's.

In WTT137, Wimbledon trains have the longer layovers by quite a margin. In WTT138 these are much reduced - in some cases by as much as nearly 10 minutes - so the reduced layover time is actually cancelling out the extra running time. This is why the extra D stocks are on the Ealing/Richmond roads (where they have an increase in running time and layover time) and, coupled with reduced layover time at Edgware (as all Wimbledons will only use platform 3), they have reduced the number of C stocks required by 2.

Nov 20, 2009 11:27:42 GMT Dstock7080 said:

I'm sure this would be quite difficult, as it would have to run down the fast from Barons Court for starters.
Then anything west of Hammersmith on the local couldn't reverse at Acton Town.

You are of course quite correct. Doh!

[Deleted]

The layovers at Wimbledon in 138 are only considerably lower in the peaks

in the off peaks they are 12 to 13 mins

the reason they are quite a bit lower in the peaks is because of the point you raised in respect to 2 less C stocks being used

8 C stock operate the EWRD-WDN service all day with no peak push ins, hence reduced layovers at both ends of the line (namely WDN) in order to maintain the 10 minute service (and save the 2 missing trains!)

As a result of D's running to/from WDN in sequence between the C's, they also cop for the shorter layover at WDN by default of the Wimbleware service pattern, as opposed to any planning strategy on behalf of the District main

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2009 11:27:42 GMT Dstock7080 said:

Then anything west of Hammersmith on the local couldn't reverse at Acton Town.

A D stock can reverse from the local west to east at Acton Town, but it is a rigermerol!! You detrain at Chiswick Park and accept shunt WL14 into Acton Town 24 siding. To regain the eastbound, requires a change of ends and accept shunt WL7 route 1 back to 21 siding, change ends accept WL53 route 3 into Acton Town Fast eastbound, change ends accept WL87 fast e/b, the e/b local can then be gained at Hammersmith!

Local to Local at Acton Town would be ... detrain at Chiswick Park and accept shunt WL14 into Acton Town 24 siding. Change ends and accept shunt WL7 route 1 to 21 siding, change ends accept WL53 route 2 into Acton Town Fast westbound, Accept shunt WL34 at station starter into Acton Town 26 siding, change ends accept shunt WL 91 route 1 to e/b local, accept WL99 route 1 to remain on local at WL109 and then into Acton Town e/b local platform!
..... or continue to Ealing Broadway

Nov 20, 2009 15:36:05 GMT @shedcompnodosh said:

The layovers at Wimbledon in 138 are only considerably lower in the peaks
in the off peaks they are 12 to 13 mins

They become 10 - 11 mins off peak, which will be less than the present 12 - 13 mins and 12 to 18 mins on the peak shoulders.

[mrfs42]

I suppose one of the easy yardsticks to 'judge' a timetable is the variety of stand time inserted and if it stabilises into a pattern. In the case of the District, I've found it usually instructive to look at the EB times from Earls Court.

Although I've only really looked at Monday-Fridays [after a long train journey yesterday] there is a morning off-peak (roughly 1030 - 1530) where the stand time pattern stabilises at faacfaaac and repeat, 1800 - 1900 roughly stabilises at [0]eeafbeac and repeat [0] being Olympias with no stand time and then between 2100 - 2245 faacfaaac reappears.

Apart from 1030-1530, 1800-1900 and 2100-2245 the EB stand time seems to be somewhat jumbled, possibly a little more variety than there has been in recent years. I might go through it again and look at stand time by origin/destination (that gives a different pattern to just heading eastwards/time) - the morning peak seems 'curious', as do the irregular retimings of 'Circle' services - my pet subject of Circle stand time belongs in a different thread.

Make of this what you will! ;D

[Dstock7080]

Very odd the weekend Richmond service rotation numbers, 1-24 . . then 117! (which is the Richmond starter)

[Deleted]

Dec 13, 2009 14:44:46 GMT Dstock7080 said:

Very odd the weekend Richmond service rotation numbers, 1-24 . . then 117! (which is the Richmond starter)

You will have to wait a bit longer till 25 comes out at 1929 before 117 is tucked up at 1936. It then resurfaces at 2227 till Richmond at 0007.

[Colin]

117 is what used to be 110, the overnight Richmond stabler.

110 is now an Upminster week day mid day stabler.

[happybunny]

Anyone got any observations on WTT 138 ?

Firstly I would notice that when during the off peak... at Acton town, Ealing and Picc branch line trains, which used to be scheduled 5 minutes apart are now scheduled 2 minutes apart... xx:x8 and xx:x0 ... which means often delays through the Acton town area as you are waiting for a Picc, especially if its having a crew change means it leaves same time as the District !

The running time is absolutely ridiculous... in the peaks I can understand it, but off-peak there is simply no need for all the extra running time AND stand time. For some reason Districts off peak to Ealing have been booked to have 2 minutes stand time at Turnham Grn WB and then another 1 minute at Acton , which is nonsense !! Combine that with the extra running time, means getting held everywhere !! Its annoying for the punters and the staff. Blocking back seems to occur often, today 3 trains queuing into EC WB with the train in the platform (in the front of the queue if you like) waiting for its 'right time' to depart !!

Extra running time in the peaks is welcome, outside of = totally unnecessary!

[mrfs42]

There is a causal link between the extra slack hours running time in WTT 138 and the regularity of the slack hours pattern of 12/1 or ½/3/7½ in WTT 23.

d and b on the WB for the Ealings are a means of smoothing out the platform (terminus) occupancy; likewise the Ealing fs at Earls Court which stop the Gadarene rush to squeeze into Tower Hill EB and part of the weighting for Ealing platforms in the slack hours.

In theory if there was blocking back away from platforms in slack hours then people would be running early - if you're blocking back in platforms then it's for the benefit of the people wishing to board. Of course in morning and evening busy, the stand times are not as obvious as they vanish automagically into the run time varia.

<devils avocado> time to change driving techniques? </devils avocado>

(That's not meant as a slur, btw - more of driving to a different timetable)

[Dstock7080]

Upon checking WTT137 had a average 43min off-peak run Tower Hill to Ealing.
WTT138 it's nearer to 52!
Which probably explains why the 12.14 ex-Tower yesterday arrived at Chiswick Park at 12.48, with an expected relief at Acton WB at 13.04 !

[djlynch]

Dec 17, 2009 15:18:56 GMT Dstock7080 said:

Upon checking WTT137 had a average 43min off-peak run Tower Hill to Ealing.
WTT138 it's nearer to 52!
Which probably explains why the 12.14 ex-Tower yesterday arrived at Chiswick Park at 12.48, with an expected relief at Acton WB at 13.04 !

That sort of situation must make for an interesting PA...

"The good news is I got you here well ahead of schedule. The bad news is my replacement is on time and won't be here for another ten minutes!

[Ben]

I remember that Q8 commented one of the reasons problems were more commonplace on the circle's lines was because circles were given too much running time to make a lap, and that it had a knock on effect. Now it seems the district has joined in on the act. Is it fair to say that, since the 70s say, by and large, running time has mostly increased on the SSR and the tube lines? What kind of increases have happened, and is there any scope in the future for them to be decreased again. No doubt, however, why they are decreased it'll be hailed as a major work to cut journey time...