THAMESLINK services to Kent and Sussex routes 2018

[southern442]

The proposal is Wimbledon via Tulse Hill to Blackfriars bays but not operated by Thameslink replacing the Wimbledon - LBG service...

That only runs at peak hours though, it would be good if the Wimbledon - London Bridge services ran throughout the day but there probably isn't the capacity to do that.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

They are fitted on the Metro platforms too at NXG

Yes but there is a crossover from the Down Slow to the Down Fast just south of the metro platform
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why couldn't the Wimbledon loop be given up to Southern Metro services in its entirety so that TL can concentrate on its other routes? Has a 700 been tried around the loop yet?

 

[387star]

Yes but there is a crossover from the Down Slow to the Down Fast just south of the metro platform
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why couldn't the Wimbledon loop be given up to Southern Metro services in its entirety so that TL can concentrate on its other routes? Has a 700 been tried around the loop yet?

what a bizarre suggestion

Southern and TL are the same company for a start

more importantly loop services serve the core and run through to st albans and Luton.... Southeastern is the only other operator to touch the core in the form of terminating trains in the bays at blackfriars which were moved over to ease congestion

One operator for the core makes sense

The loop line passengers were very vocal when there was speculation loop services wouldn't serve central London

 

[tsr]

Historically someone or some group from Redhill must have really annoyed the train planners. I cannot think of one town that is expanding and being developed like Redhill where year on year the train service is getting worse in terms of capacity and journey time.

Correct. The evolving design of the current site of Redhill station was always a compromise to allow a mix of services to run based loosely on those which, in the days of yore, were devised by separate railway companies with competing destinations, interests and so on. These companies originally annoyed each other quite a lot, which is of course a story repeated in many places, including other locations in Surrey and its immediate surroundings.

The effect of this is that the old SER-esque Tonbridge and Reigate routes hold a significant sway over what actually runs and in some cases what can practically run via Redhill, followed by local stopping services of lower significance than mainline expresses, followed by coastal services. The track layout has historically meant that this is easiest, and in some ways this remains the case now. The ability to run Brighton services via Redhill has pretty much never been popular with private companies and this is reflected by the fact that the Redhill route is basically on the BML "Slow Lines". You only have to look at a Sunday when London Bridge-Hastings services are successfully diverted via Redhill, with local Tonbridge, Horsham and Reading services mingling fairly well, but with a token Brighton service struggling to cope over all the junctions, to realise that 'twas always thus. I happen to sign the mainline through Redhill and the Quarry and have first-hand professional and commuter experience of how this all generally pans out.

I am actually surprised that nobody has ever seriously proposed closure of the route between Redhill and Earlswood, with the BML permanently diverted via the Quarry Line only. I believe the only saviour of this two-track section was really the emerging need for various contingency diversions for London-Gatwick trains, coupled with an emerging cross-country and then only regional service from the Reading area to Gatwick. I honestly think that if either BR or the various railway companies could have got away with a simple fork to Tonbridge and Reigate/Reading, this would have been implemented.

Service reduction now is a very complex thing and the local users' association and many other parties do know this. It is correct to say that the variety of destinations has changed, though sheer overall numbers/frequency of services is slightly more difficult to quantify on an overall basis. This is mainly due to reliability problems caused in a large part by infrastructure inflexibility. Whilst Platform 0 and other things will help, this is a sticking plaster on the age-old track layout which, as I have detailed above, has come down through the generations as a result of old company rivalries limiting what could be done until it was too late to design for a future service flow to all destinations - and, thus, design to cope with future traffic.

3. They won't have enough 12 car trains unless you swap any of the remaining BML services which will now be even more crowded to 8 car instead (all the platforms they stop at are 12 car)

I'm not sure if you're referring to the BML with that comment, but not all the platforms are 12 car ones...

The following stations are a few which currently have services to or from Brighton:
Balcombe Platform 2: 8 coaches
Selhurst: Fast Lines 8 coaches / Slow Lines 10 coaches
Clapham Junction: Brighton Slow Lines have 10 coach platforms

Remember BOTH trains can be brought in on a red at the end of the platforms 4 and 5... at least the platform duties, and passenger movements can be done.....

At least the train in platform 4 will be ready to start rather than sitting outside of the platform.

Maybe a TRTS should be installed on platforms 4 and 5.

TRTS already exists on both platforms. It is used especially for Milton Keynes services and those services which are held on red signals during issues causing significant delay, such as late-running crew, disruptive/ill passengers, train faults.

 

[southern442]

Historically someone or some group from Redhill must have really annoyed the train planners. I cannot think of one town that is expanding and being developed like Redhill where year on year the train service is getting worse in terms of capacity and journey time.

Looks like you'll have to wait until I'm in charge of train timetabling

 

[Islineclear3_1]

what a bizarre suggestion

Southern and TL are the same company for a start

more importantly loop services serve the core and run through to st albans and Luton.... Southeastern is the only other operator to touch the core in the form of terminating trains in the bays at blackfriars which were moved over to ease congestion

One operator for the core makes sense

The loop line passengers were very vocal when there was speculation loop services wouldn't serve central London

Yes I know it's a bizzare question and I am aware Southern and TL are the same company. This is why I suggested Southern Metro and asked the question about whether a 700 had been around the loop yet.

The reason I was asking is whether Southern could utilise more 377's on the Wimbledon loop unless of course, 700s were cleared.

And with GTR's contempt for some of its staff (and all of its passengers) - nothing would surprise me in their next move

 

[Philip C]

I am actually surprised that nobody has ever seriously proposed closure of the route between Redhill and Earlswood, with the BML permanently diverted via the Quarry Line only. I believe the only saviour of this two-track section was really the emerging need for various contingency diversions for London-Gatwick trains, coupled with an emerging cross-country and then only regional service from the Reading area to Gatwick. I honestly think that if either BR or the various railway companies could have got away with a simple fork to Tonbridge and Reigate/Reading, this would have been implemented.

You say that you are ACTUALLY SURPRISED, that you BELIEVE and that you HONESTLY THINK.......

I can think of no time in the last forty-five years, during which I have been familiar with the area, nor of any time in the one hundred and sixteen years since the opening of the Quarry Line, that closure of the line between Redhill and Earlswood would have been regarded as anything other than a crack-pot idea!!

You might like to begin with the electification timetable of 1933 and work your way forward! The sublime idea that the Tonbridge and Guildford lines, together with turning back at Redhill/Reigate could command half the trackage south of the Coulsdon area is utterly fanciful!

 

[JonathanH]

You say that you are ACTUALLY SURPRISED, that you BELIEVE and that you HONESTLY THINK.......

I can think of no time in the last forty-five years, during which I have been familiar with the area, nor of any time in the one hundred and sixteen years since the opening of the Quarry Line, that closure of the line between Redhill and Earlswood would have been regarded as anything other than a crack-pot idea!!

You might like to begin with the electification timetable of 1933 and work your way forward! The sublime idea that the Tonbridge and Guildford lines, together with turning back at Redhill/Reigate could command half the trackage south of the Coulsdon area is utterly fanciful!

On the other hand the Redhill route gets 6 trains each hour and the Quarry line around 14 trains each hour, the former not helped by the conflicting moves at Redhill. The trains that do run between Redhill and Earlswood do / should not have any purpose in dealing with the people travelling from Gatwick to London, just local transit - if you don't believe that look at the difference in passenger numbers on platforms 1/2 and 4 at Gatwick now that Gatwick Express has moved.

It is also much easier to slot in the diverted London Bridge to Hastings trains than it ever would be to restore trains to the Brighton line from Redhill.

 

[tsr]

You say that you are ACTUALLY SURPRISED, that you BELIEVE and that you HONESTLY THINK.......

I can think of no time in the last forty-five years, during which I have been familiar with the area, nor of any time in the one hundred and sixteen years since the opening of the Quarry Line, that closure of the line between Redhill and Earlswood would have been regarded as anything other than a crack-pot idea!!

You might like to begin with the electification timetable of 1933 and work your way forward! The sublime idea that the Tonbridge and Guildford lines, together with turning back at Redhill/Reigate could command half the trackage south of the Coulsdon area is utterly fanciful!

My family has been in the area for rather longer than 45 years. During that time I cannot say that we can, between us, recall very much enthusiasm of the railway companies, BR et al for serving the South Coast from Redhill. Having a connection between Redhill, Earlswood and thus the South of the BML has just been something that has had to be done to avoid rerouting journeys unnecessarily. The coastal expresses have very much always favoured the Quarry and these, funnily enough, are also the services most suited to serving other mainline services such as Gatwick. During the many proposed changes and cuts to lines and services over the course of time, I stand by my comment that I am surprised that this was never proposed as a BML simplification. The lines through Coulsdon South, Merstham and Redhill hold little value and limited daytime capacity for express services, but have provided and continue to provide a good service for local traffic between London, Coulsdon, the Redhill area, Reigate and so on. Added to this, the Slow Lines' service at Earlswood and Salfords has long been fairly limited and especially so at weekends, when you would think that leisure services would be provided if so required. A significant bulk of the traffic is from Redhill anyway; added to the other towns, villages and suburbs, the actual capacity on the Slows from Stoats Nest would, in the event of service cuts, have been well-suited to being distributed amongst trains to Redhill and its unique ex-SER route connections.

On the other hand, the rise of Gatwick and the evolution of the cross-country services I alluded to before have both meant that closing such lines would be patently stupid. This, I believe, has been the reason why there has been a commercial desire to keep these lines open. In addition, co-ordinating and marshalling troop trains and suchlike meant that Redhill was a useful "crossroads" facility at other times, so even a vague notion of lifting the lines was probably deemed a bad thing immediately either side of or during WWII.

I fear you may be getting confused with what railway companies have had to do to avoid being seen to get away with stupid errors, and what they would probably have liked to do on several occasions, but weren't able to because they would have been seen as just too short-sighted for strategic reasons. I genuinely think that simplifying the Redhill area to being two suburban branches from London is exactly the sort of thing which would have been attractive had there not been some hope provided by routes being connected up at exactly the right point by way of the course of history.

The point of the Quarry Line was to finally rid the Victoria-Brighton and South Coast route of the necessity to trundle through Kent area infrastructure at Redhill, serve it or care about it. Whilst the company history is rather more complex, the "coastal" idea of avoiding Redhill has and remains still prevalent in deciding service priorities in the area years later. And if Gatwick and the South could have been served adequately via the Quarry without needing a service from Redhill, which as I stress is the reason why Redhill-Earlswood is needed, I think simplification would have occurred.

So, then, what is my overall point? That timetables and infrastructure still reflect the fact that the Kentish company/operator was the only one which really ever wanted to serve Redhill, and that Southern and Thameslink, like their predecessors, never wanted to and have never found it to be worthwhile or practical to run services since they have been able to avoid the area. A large part of the original issue with this is that there was great rivalry and bickering for a considerable time about the stations in Redhill, and who should be allowed to the serve the area. The fact that Redhill ever retained a connection to the South is a quirk of history. This is reflected by how much easier it is to run services from Redhill to Tonbridge or Reading than it is to serve the Coast.

This is aside from what JonathanH has more eloquently, and in my experience correctly, stated above.

 

[Minstral25]

..... deleted

 

[BRX]

What were you hoping for? Many people were surprised when the loop stayed with Thameslink in the first place...

Better early morning and late night services would be a good place to start.

increased frequency generally would be nice.

But reliability improvements would make a big difference. I know an opportunity to achieve this was scuppered somewhat by the misguided campaign to retain through services.

 

[Philip C]

On the other hand the Redhill route gets 6 trains each hour and the Quarry line around 14 trains each hour, the former not helped by the conflicting moves at Redhill. The trains that do run between Redhill and Earlswood do / should not have any purpose in dealing with the people travelling from Gatwick to London, just local transit - if you don't believe that look at the difference in passenger numbers on platforms 1/2 and 4 at Gatwick now that Gatwick Express has moved.

It is also much easier to slot in the diverted London Bridge to Hastings trains than it ever would be to restore trains to the Brighton line from Redhill.

I agree with your totalling of the trains running from London via the Redhill and Quarry lines. I agree that there is a potential for some conflicting movements at Redhill. I agree that those running between London and Gatwick via Redhill will have little use by those travelling between London and Gatwick. I cannot understand why this supports the case for closing the line between Redhill and Earlswood either at the present or at any other time. As I travel between Hastings and London on a semi-regular basis (on SE for choice) I look forward to a time when diversions via Tonbridge/Redhill are less common than at present - there is no more than a niche market for such an attenuated routeing.

 

[westcoaster]

New Cross Gate has had 700 stopping markers fitted unlike the other metro stations so I presume it is planned to stop.

RLU FLU and ALL boards have sprung up at all station between streatham and eastcroydon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Wimbledon loop is becoming the new Catford loop. It's very neglected and only 2tph for what could be a very useful link. It would be great if the Wimbledon loop got an extra 2tph somehow (not exactly sure where from though, Victoria maybe?).

As I drive around there all the time, the demand is not there even on 2tph you are carting around fresh air ( more than likely you could use a 153 and still have Spare seats).

 

[clagmonster]

RLU FLU and ALL boards have sprung up at all station between streatham and eastcroydon.

Presumably for use by the early morning services that start at Selhurst. Slightly odd that these exist in this format these days, now the units don't come off Selhurst anymore I always think. I wonder with the 700s whether these will start back at Three Bridges and come off the depot there.

 

[30907]

So, then, what is my overall point? That timetables and infrastructure still reflect the fact that the Kentish company/operator was the only one which really ever wanted to serve Redhill, and that Southern and Thameslink, like their predecessors, never wanted to and have never found it to be worthwhile or practical to run services since they have been able to avoid the area. A large part of the original issue with this is that there was great rivalry and bickering for a considerable time about the stations in Redhill, and who should be allowed to the serve the area. The fact that Redhill ever retained a connection to the South is a quirk of history. This is reflected by how much easier it is to run services from Redhill to Tonbridge or Reading than it is to serve the Coast.

This is an interesting take on railway history, which ignores the fact that from the Brighton electrification onwards the branch lines have been just that (reflecting the fact that they were no longer particularly important to the SER either) with just the occasional London service (apart from Reigate portions of Brighton slows). From 1933 until the Tonbridge line was electrified Redhill was almost entirely served by Brighton line trains (admittedly with no East or West Coast services, though pre 1967 there were some Pompeys), and even now 2 out of 3 offpeak trains are on the main line. I agree that Redhill to Brighton has done badly recently, but that's a different issue.

 

[Philip C]

My family has been in the area for rather longer than 45 years. During that time I cannot say that we can, between us, recall very much enthusiasm of the railway companies, BR et al for serving the South Coast from Redhill.

For many years (probably from electrification - I haven't the time to check) there were four London to Brighton trains per hour. Until the TT changes of 1978 these comprised the fast (running via the Quarry), two slows (one from LB & one from Vic) calling at all stations from Purley to Brighton including Redhill and the semi-fast which typically left Vic at xx28 and called, after Croydon at Redhill, Gatwick, Haywards Heath and Brighton. Until some date in the sixties (?) it also called at Preston Park. From 1978 the semi-fast became a Quarry Line service and the half-hourly slows ran non-stop between Redhill and Gatwick en route to Brighton. Whether there was enthusiasm from management I have no idea.

Having a connection between Redhill, Earlswood and thus the South of the BML has just been something that has had to be done to avoid rerouting journeys unnecessarily. The coastal expresses have very much always favoured the Quarry and these, funnily enough, are also the services most suited to serving other mainline services such as Gatwick.

Yes that's true. Coastal expresses would be less expresses if they took the slow route via Redhill and even even less if they called there and, funnily enough, by not stopping at Redhill they are better suited to serving the London-Gatwick demand. If Redhill-Earlswood were closed it would be a very great inconvenience to those travelling to Gatwick and beyond from stations south of Purley (or accessing Redhill for the south from west or east) so it does avoid rerouting journeys unnecessarily.

During the many proposed changes and cuts to lines and services over the course of time, I stand by my comment that I am surprised that this was never proposed as a BML simplification. The lines through Coulsdon South, Merstham and Redhill hold little value and limited daytime capacity for express services, but have provided and continue to provide a good service for local traffic between London, Coulsdon, the Redhill area, Reigate and so on. Added to this, the Slow Lines' service at Earlswood and Salfords has long been fairly limited and especially so at weekends, when you would think that leisure services would be provided if so required.

Map 9 of The Reshaping of British Railways (commonly referred to as the Beeching Report) indicates that all stopping passenger trains would be withdrawn from the Redhill-Guildford and Redhill-Tonbridge sections and closure of stations other than Reigate on these sections. I see no evidence that Redhill-Earlswood was under threat. So you can add Dr B to the list of people who could see no logic in removing a section of limb from the anatomy of the BML.

In my opinion a half-hourly service stopping at Salfords etc. is comfortably adequate to deal with the traffic offering. What would you regard as adequate?

A significant bulk of the traffic is from Redhill anyway; added to the other towns, villages and suburbs, the actual capacity on the Slows from Stoats Nest would, in the event of service cuts, have been well-suited to being distributed amongst trains to Redhill and its unique ex-SER route connections.

I have explained that, it the event of cuts, the "unique ex-SER route connections" would have been well up the list to be cut themselves. I agree that much of the slow line traffic is to/from Redhill but the capacity on the slows must be of the order of 10-15tph. This is vastly in excess of that of which a town of 18,000 souls can make sensible use.

On the other hand, the rise of Gatwick and the evolution of the cross-country services I alluded to before have both meant that closing such lines would be patently stupid. This, I believe, has been the reason why there has been a commercial desire to keep these lines open. In addition, co-ordinating and marshalling troop trains and suchlike meant that Redhill was a useful "crossroads" facility at other times, so even a vague notion of lifting the lines was probably deemed a bad thing immediately either side of or during WWII.

Indeed it would be patently stupid. Then why did you post at (#94) "I am actually surprised that nobody has ever seriously proposed closure of the route between Redhill and Earlswood, with the BML permanently diverted via the Quarry Line only."

I fear you may be getting confused with what railway companies have had to do to avoid being seen to get away with stupid errors, and what they would probably have liked to do on several occasions, but weren't able to because they would have been seen as just too short-sighted for strategic reasons. I genuinely think that simplifying the Redhill area to being two suburban branches from London is exactly the sort of thing which would have been attractive had there not been some hope provided by routes being connected up at exactly the right point by way of the course of history.

I am not getting confused. The closure of the Redhill-Earlswood section would have been at any point in the last 116 years (since the opening of the Quarry Line) and remains today and will remain for many years to come, barring nuclear war, a crack-pot idea of the first order. What any company does (railway companies included) to avoid being seen to get away with stupid errors is not to make stupid errors in the first place. And I cannot see what "stupid error" you are accusing the LBSC, the Southern Railway, British Rail, Connex, Southern or GTR as having made other than NOT closing a section of line and thereby cutting Redhill off from the south.

The point of the Quarry Line was to finally rid the Victoria-Brighton and South Coast route of the necessity to trundle through Kent area infrastructure at Redhill, serve it or care about it. Whilst the company history is rather more complex, the "coastal" idea of avoiding Redhill has and remains still prevalent in deciding service priorities in the area years later. And if Gatwick and the South could have been served adequately via the Quarry without needing a service from Redhill, which as I stress is the reason why Redhill-Earlswood is needed, I think simplification would have occurred.

It is not true that the LBSC pulled out of serving Redhill when the Quarry Line opened. The SER opened its London-Sevenoaks-Tonbridge line in 1868 after which the importance of the SER Redhill route was much reduced. The Quarry Line was built to relieve the Redhill line in the face of growing traffic levels - an alternative might have been to more obviously quadruple the existing alignment but, I presume, that this would have been more expensive and disruptive to the town of Redhill and cut straight through the junctions which would, by this time, have been busy with freight if not passenger traffic. Redhill was very much a beneficiary of the Quarry Line.

I suspect that Gatwick and the South could, even today, be served perfectly well without use of the Redhill route (other than at times of disruption) but Redhill is a significant town en route and it would be silly not to provide an integrated service. Mainline trains are now at such a frequency that robust timetabling requires that once separated into Redhill and Quarry services at Stoats Nest there is an absolute minimum of the trains subsequently sharing tracks. I can only say that I find this logical.

So, then, what is my overall point? That timetables and infrastructure still reflect the fact that the Kentish company/operator was the only one which really ever wanted to serve Redhill, and that Southern and Thameslink, like their predecessors, never wanted to and have never found it to be worthwhile or practical to run services since they have been able to avoid the area. A large part of the original issue with this is that there was great rivalry and bickering for a considerable time about the stations in Redhill, and who should be allowed to the serve the area. The fact that Redhill ever retained a connection to the South is a quirk of history. This is reflected by how much easier it is to run services from Redhill to Tonbridge or Reading than it is to serve the Coast.

As I have explained the SER pretty much left Redhill once it had a better route into Kent via Sevenoaks whilst the Southern Region stopped three out of four Brighton trains per hour at Redhill for the 45 years from electrification onwards and two per hour for some years after that. If there are only trains southbound to Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges or Horsham nowadays that reflects the growth from six trains an hour through the Haywards Heath area in 1970 to ten trains an hour (12tph from HH to Keymer Junction) in 2016 (disputes permitting!). Reintegrating services from the down slow lines back into the down fast lines with 10tph coming the other way on the up fast just isn't on. To say that the LBSC and successors have never been interested in Redhill is unprovable and flies in the face of the evidence. In 1973 down off-peak departures from Redhill were as follows: xx00 Brighton; xx23 Brighton; xx36 Bognor (via Horsham & Littlehampton); xx53 Brighton. And, as today, Eastbourne and Worthing would have been a single change away.

 

[bionic]

Am I right in thinking that the GTR Greenwich line trains will still have to cross over the up and down Cannon Street lines at North Kent East junction to get to/from the Southwark reversible?

 

[hwl]

Am I right in thinking that the GTR Greenwich line trains will still have to cross over the up and down Cannon Street lines at North Kent East junction to get to/from the Southwark reversible?

Yes. Up, Reversible and Down CST lines, which is going to be good for performance.

 

[bionic]

I thought so. It seems an odd thing to do when they've put so much work, time, effort and money into "untangling" the approach to London Bridge with the Bermondsey diveunder etc. Why then put extra conflicting moves in? I find it quite puzzling.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The Wimbledon loop is becoming the new Catford loop. It's very neglected and only 2tph for what could be a very useful link. It would be great if the Wimbledon loop got an extra 2tph somehow (not exactly sure where from though, Victoria maybe?).

Hence another reason for my bizzare question about the possibilty of utilising Southern Metro more. Increase to 3-4tph perhaps terminating at Victoria or London Bridge or Blackfriars.

Do many people on the Wimbledon loop regularly travel further than St Pancras on TL at present?

 

[hwl]

Hence another reason for my bizzare question about the possibilty of utilising Southern Metro more. Increase to 3-4tph perhaps terminating at Victoria or London Bridge or Blackfriars.

Do many people on the Wimbledon loop regularly travel further than St Pancras on TL at present?

The plan is 2tph from each side of the loop terminating in the Blackfriars bays to compliment the Thameslinks...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought so. It seems an odd thing to do when they've put so much work, time, effort and money into "untangling" the approach to London Bridge with the Bermondsey diveunder etc. Why then put extra conflicting moves in? I find it quite puzzling.

NR untangle it then Govia (GTR and SE) go about tangling it up again

 

[BRX]

The plan is 2tph from each side of the loop terminating in the Blackfriars bays to compliment the Thameslinks...

Are you sure? Starting when? That would be a big improvement if true.

 

[SF-02]

Why not have the Woolwich line train go via Lewisham? That would solve the problem wouldn't it?

 

[postye]

Why not have the Woolwich line train go via Lewisham? That would solve the problem wouldn't it?

It would just move the problem to Lewisham which is already congested and I believe operating very close to max in the peak

 

[321over360]

It would just move the problem to Lewisham which is already congested and I believe operating very close to max in the peak

Added to the fact all the Charing Cross to the Medway town services that use this line to go CHX to Lewisham to Blackheath to Charlton then onto WWA and then the Medway stations there wouldnt be any room, plus the fact from September there will be more Medway to CHX services going via WWA to compensate for the loss of CST to Dartford services which will become rounders after Slade Green and go back to CST via Sidcup and vice versa the other way.

 

[Class 466]

Added to the fact all the Charing Cross to the Medway town services that use this line to go CHX to Lewisham to Blackheath to Charlton then onto WWA and then the Medway stations there wouldnt be any room, plus the fact from September there will be more Medway to CHX services going via WWA to compensate for the loss of CST to Dartford services which will become rounders after Slade Green and go back to CST via Sidcup and vice versa the other way.

The Luton - Rainham Service will replace the Charing X - Gillingham Services.

The rest of the stuff quoted is peak only alterations to the current timetable. off peak they will all go via WWA as they do now. with the Cannon St Rounders running as they do now off peak as well.

 

[southern442]

deleted

 

[Arendt]

The Luton - Rainham Service will replace the Charing X - Gillingham Services.

.

Confused.. Will the proposed thameslink now go via lewisham or Greenwich

 

[Class 466]

Confused.. Will the proposed thameslink now go via lewisham or Greenwich

Via Greenwich. but will replace the current stoppers from Gillingham up to Dartford. There's no need or room to run Gillingham to Charing X on top of Rainham to Luton.

Disregard all the current service patterns as the entire metro area will be re-cast.

 

[telstarbox]

For anyone travelling from the Medway Towns to north of St Pancras, won't it still be quicker to go via HS1 and change at STP?