RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Allocations, Diagrams & Timetables


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21st November 2016, 22:33   #301
cle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 1,247
Default

There is some logic to your maths, but if you travel near to the front then cross-platform applies to 100% of the Up trains. Even if not, it's a quicker transfer than most train to tube ones.

And headed Down, agreed. But would doubled frequencies not mitigate some of this time in terms of netting out over the course of a travelling week. Mornings yes you leave in time for a specific train, but evenings you may not - or may find yourself procrastinating at your desk until it's time for the next train. At a higher frequency, you might gain back more personal time.
cle is offline   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 21st November 2016, 23:07   #302
Class377/5
Established Member
 
Class377/5's Avatar
 
Join Date: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 5,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cle View Post
There is some logic to your maths, but if you travel near to the front then cross-platform applies to 100% of the Up trains. Even if not, it's a quicker transfer than most train to tube ones.

And headed Down, agreed. But would doubled frequencies not mitigate some of this time in terms of netting out over the course of a travelling week. Mornings yes you leave in time for a specific train, but evenings you may not - or may find yourself procrastinating at your desk until it's time for the next train. At a higher frequency, you might gain back more personal time.
Depends on if you count walking around a platform as cross platform, I don't. So it's 50% cross platform on the up.

Also you fail to note that not everyone can can be in front carriage, even if they wanted to. And running through the Core will be at the same frequencis as it with the additional used to go to Blackfriars used to balance the load.

Still no-one has given a decent reason why the Sutton services should terminate that stands up. NR path crossing excuse didn't stand up hence why it was scrapped. And make no excuse that we run more trains today crossing without issue so it is proven wrong.
Class377/5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 01:48   #303
BRX
Member
 
Join Date: 20 Oct 2008
Posts: 654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Class377/5 View Post
Depends on if you count walking around a platform as cross platform, I don't. So it's 50% cross platform on the up.

Also you fail to note that not everyone can can be in front carriage, even if they wanted to. And running through the Core will be at the same frequencis as it with the additional used to go to Blackfriars used to balance the load.

Still no-one has given a decent reason why the Sutton services should terminate that stands up. NR path crossing excuse didn't stand up hence why it was scrapped. And make no excuse that we run more trains today crossing without issue so it is proven wrong.
As someone who lives on the Wimbledon Loop - the real problem is the terrible reliability which surely could only be improved by making the loop trains self-contained. At the moment things going wrong north of London seem to completely mess up services. And it only takes a couple of consecutive trains to be cancelled and some delayed ones to leave you with an hour gap between trains and no easy alternative route. This happens all the time.

I do like the fact that I can get a train direct to Farringdon or St Pancras, when everything's working. But I'd happily sacrifice that for an improvement in reliability because the way things are at the moment, if you need to get somewhere by a certain time you really have to factor in an extra 45 minutes or so just to cover yourself for the likelihood of your train being cancelled or delayed. I'd rather take the hit of a 10 minute transfer at Blackfriars and as places to wait for a train go - it's got one of the best views from the platform anywhere in the UK.
BRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 13:44   #304
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: 7 Apr 2010
Posts: 13,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRX View Post
As someone who lives on the Wimbledon Loop - the real problem is the terrible reliability which surely could only be improved by making the loop trains self-contained. At the moment things going wrong north of London seem to completely mess up services. And it only takes a couple of consecutive trains to be cancelled and some delayed ones to leave you with an hour gap between trains and no easy alternative route. This happens all the time...
Presumably people who understood the advantages to workings to/from the bays, such as reliability and increased frequency, didn't make enough noise during the consultation, and were drowned out by those who swayed the DfT the other way.

(Which has to be fair been discussed many times before, so probably unwise to start again now...)
swt_passenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 14:05   #305
BRX
Member
 
Join Date: 20 Oct 2008
Posts: 654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swt_passenger View Post
Presumably people who understood the advantages to workings to/from the bays, such as reliability and increased frequency, didn't make enough noise during the consultation, and were drowned out by those who swayed the DfT the other way.
I tried to make the point to the people running the campaign but they didn't seem interested, at least not the chap I talked to.
BRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 20:02   #306
cle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 1,247
Default

Well I don't think walking to the front and around a train is so awful - all level after all. But clearly there is a self-fulfilling message and position to reinforce on the issue.

I think the Wimbledon loop should terminate at Blackfriars, and possibly even then not run as a loop - longer time and slight crayoning but 4tph shuttling to Wimbledon and then 4tph direct to Sutton and beyond via Hackbridge.

Wimbledon to Sutton becoming Tramlink, especially with CR2 - and feeding into that.
cle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 21:34   #307
southern442
Established Member
 
Join Date: 20 May 2013
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cle View Post
Well I don't think walking to the front and around a train is so awful - all level after all. But clearly there is a self-fulfilling message and position to reinforce on the issue.

I think the Wimbledon loop should terminate at Blackfriars, and possibly even then not run as a loop - longer time and slight crayoning but 4tph shuttling to Wimbledon and then 4tph direct to Sutton and beyond via Hackbridge.

Wimbledon to Sutton becoming Tramlink, especially with CR2 - and feeding into that.
That's rather inconvenient for those that live on or around the loop.
southern442 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2016, 22:51   #308
cle
Established Member
 
Join Date: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 1,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southern442 View Post
That's rather inconvenient for those that live on or around the loop.
It'd be close to CR2 stations as is - and wouldn't say 6-12tph trams be better than the current 2, going up to 4tph - to get them to Wimbledon?
cle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2016, 12:02   #309
phil281
Member
 
Join Date: 9 Mar 2011
Posts: 164
Default

I've always thought the Wimbledon loop services should go to London Bridge via Peckham Rye. Then the Beckenham Junction/West Croydon terminators be turned into thameslink services. Would build in more durability to the thameslink service. I guess the key obstacle would be tulse hill and paths through there.
phil281 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:36   #310
387star
Established Member
 
Join Date: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 4,236
Default

Why do Thames link no longer serve Rochester and Ashford as they used to?

Why are services shared with southeastern drivers?
387star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:40   #311
Failed Unit
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Jan 2009
Location: Central Belt
Posts: 4,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 387star View Post
Why do Thames link no longer serve Rochester and Ashford as they used to?

Why are services shared with southeastern drivers?
The service was created when Blackfriars was getting rebuilt. The services originally terminated there. When the bays were removed they needed to do something with them so they sent them to Kentish Town. They have got intergrated in ever since.

They were Southeastern services - hence why they drive them.
Failed Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 20:44   #312
Class377/5
Established Member
 
Class377/5's Avatar
 
Join Date: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 5,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 387star View Post
Why do Thames link no longer serve Rochester and Ashford as they used to?

Why are services shared with southeastern drivers?
Technically Thameslink never served either. The service 'terminated' for FCC/Thameslink and became a Southeastern service.

However the service was only temporary arrangement due to the bays at Blackfriars being closed. It survived on basis of the stock diagrams but has now ended.

Services are shared with SE drivers due to the said closure of Blackfriars bays and FCC/Thameslink drivers driving the former SE services into Kent meaning some SE drivers were displaced and then worked parts of the FCC/TL services.

Long term things are supposed to change with drivers transferring. Oh And Ashford will become a proper Thameslink destination in 2018 with class 700s serving the station as a peak only extension of the Maidstone east services (also calling at Bearstead).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failed Unit View Post
The service was created when Blackfriars was getting rebuilt. The services originally terminated there. When the bays were removed they needed to do something with them so they sent them to Kentish Town. They have got intergrated in ever since.

They were Southeastern services - hence why they drive them.
Are we answering everything at the same time tonight?

Last edited by Class377/5; 11th January 2017 at 20:44. Reason: Double post prevention system
Class377/5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 21:21   #313
387star
Established Member
 
Join Date: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 4,236
Default

Great thanks
387star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2017, 21:42   #314
Failed Unit
Established Member
 
Join Date: 26 Jan 2009
Location: Central Belt
Posts: 4,777
Default

Worth looking at page 12. I know the link is pasted before but saves searching.

http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/dow...-consultation/

I had forgotten some of the places to be served myself.
Failed Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th January 2017, 08:22   #315
bionic
Member
 
Join Date: 8 Nov 2013
Posts: 20
Default

The current plans are that SE drivers will no longer be driving Thameslink routes after May 2018. GTR have recruited a load of new drivers who will be taking the work over once the GTR depot at Orpington opens in 2018 along with (presumably) some displaced Blackfriars drivers who opt to move there. Orpington SE depot is expected to shrink as a result as it currently has the best part of twenty Thameslink diagrams a day during the week.
bionic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:49.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017