Thameslink 2018 Timetable Consultation Part 2

[Downthelane]

Nothing is hence confirmed and you can imagine GN are fully aware of the loading south of Welwyn North and the timetable planners are trying to ensure that they don't provide a worse service that at present.

The speculation is about draft timetables that are now removed so it's probably unfair on those passengers who haven't seen them to be scared off by those that are speculating.

 

[Failed Unit]

Nothing is hence confirmed and you can imagine GN are fully aware of the loading south of Welwyn North and the timetable planners are trying to ensure that they don't provide a worse service that at present.

The speculation is about draft timetables that are now removed so it's probably unfair on those passengers who haven't seen them to be scared off by those that are speculating.

You have a more optimistic view about this whole process than me. The whole way the did the consultantation was so the could do what they wanted.

Example 1. Run the consultation GTR wide. People who are losing thier direct trains to Peterborough objected. GTR take the view that most people have no preference. Well of course they don’t the survey included Southern for example. They clearly wouldn’t mind. Just as I couldn’t comment about controversial proposals to their timetables. However it dilutes strong feeling to these changes. The opinion about such changes should have got filtered to the people impacted rather than hide strong objections by making it part of one large consultation. It is like taking someone in Leeds opinion about if the London - Manchester service should be reduced to ½ hourly....

Do you seriously expect GTR to provide WGC extra services. Yes we have objected to the peak service journey length getting inceased by 33% didn’t even make the list of things they are looking at? Why because we need to use the train to get to work. We have no choice so GTR don’t care. They have no incentive to make a timetable that is at least the same quality as we have today.

Again considering the fact the refuse to sort out the weekends service, do you seriously think they will do anything about the worsening peak timetable for some of their busiest stations served by a single operator? This is GTR!

 

[Downthelane]

Is the key WGC concern the loss of the fasts to Finsbury Park?

 

[Failed Unit]

Is the key WGC concern the loss of the fasts to Finsbury Park?

From my understanding the following.
1. Loss of direct services to Peterborough with poor connection at Stevenage as a replacement. We can now connect onto services to Edinburgh/ Leeds with a single change.
2. Loss of the fast services. New timetable will be 10 minutes slower in the peak. Very significant if the journey is only 20 minutes.
3. Reduction in seats.

GTRs response.
1. Responses to the consultantation show a lot of people against this change but the vast majority have no opinion. Of course they don’t why would someone from Cambridge have an opinion on this?
2. no comment
3. We understand that this is a problem at certain stations but overall we will offer more seats (lucky Stevenage). As I said 3 of the busiest stations actually see a reduction in seats.

Now we are concerned that after downgrading of 1,2 and3 we will never see a service through the core. Push back to 2020 - but will Cambridge- Maidstone ever happen or will it be quietly forgotten about?

 

[ijmad]

Not yet. Some drafts were out last year for consulting. They are all removed from websites. I expect you to be able to start searching for the about the 3rd week in Feb as we get towards the 12 weeks before start date.

What are the chances they'll be 'provisional' right up until May 1st at which point it'll suddenly be 'too late to make any further changes'...

 

[Envy123]

.

Do you seriously expect GTR to provide WGC extra services. Yes we have objected to the peak service journey length getting inceased by 33% didn’t even make the list of things they are looking at?

So, GTR is changing longer-distance services for the worse while local journeys are relatively unscathed?

Talk about shooting itself in the foot...

 

[Failed Unit]

Taken from another thread.

The top 20 GN stations (total entries and exits) are these:

London King's Cross 33816396 (includes IC)
Cambridge 11424902. ( includes greater Anglia)
Moorgate 10833978
Finsbury Park 7032726
Old Street 5323546
Stevenage 4846618 (includes IC) winner in new timetable.
Peterborough 4774744 (includes IC)
Hitchin 3213416 (winner in new timetable)
Welwyn Garden City 2950948 (worse service proposal)
Hatfield 2377326 (worse service proposal)
Potters Bar 1984326 (worse service proposal)
Palmers Green 1912628
Letchworth 1890116
Huntingdon 1840936
Winchmore Hill 1690236
Hornsey 1675092
Alexandra Palace 1621664
Hertford North 1616265
Enfield Chase 1590446
Royston 1483338

Hard to split out who uses GN compared with other operating companies at Peterborough and Cambridge but I suspect this competition is why they are seeing the improvement and the lack of an alternative is why welwyn, Hatfield and potters bar will see their service downgraded.

The Hertford look gets 2 extra peak trains each hour. Not sure which stations really gain.

 

[jon0844]

It would seem that when WGC gets 4tph an hour to Moorgate, it will be more about capacity than speed. We know that to get more paths, you slow trains down and sadly it would appear that this is what will happen.

As long as we see passenger numbers grow, and there are 1500 new flats being built at WGC alone (I'd imagine most of those will have at least one commuter living in them!) and more at Hatfield, Knebworth and elsewhere, shifting more people is all that anyone cares about. Slower trains. Less seats....

Thing is, what's the viable alternative?

Extending the platforms from WGC south would obviously be worthwhile but that will cost a fortune and is out of the control of any TOC.

 

[Failed Unit]

One thing that surprises me. Welwyn north gets an increase in trains stopping there. Considering that a stop a welwyn north takes up 2 paths on a 2 track railway it is amazing this is considered acceptable.

I am sure WGC could have more stops. Hatfield more challenging because of lack of down fast platform.

 

[Downthelane]

How does WGC differ to Hatfield? WGC has no fast platforms, Hatfield has the down.

So let's say you are. 7.55 WGC to KGX customer what does the draft timetable suggest your route and journey is is post May 18?

 

[Failed Unit]

How does WGC differ to Hatfield? WGC has no fast platforms, Hatfield has the down.

So let's say you are. 7.55 WGC to KGX customer what does the draft timetable suggest your route and journey is is post May 18?

But you can get onto the fasts at WGC. You need to go to Marshmoor. But at least the stopped train isn’t obstructing the line like at Welwyn North.

Today 0755 arrive into KX at 0815
May. 0752 arrive into Kx at 0823.

The 0755 is exceptionally full already. Additional stops at Hatfield and Potters Bar will probably result in people left behind at potters bar.

If the service went into the core people may be more accepting of the increased journey time as their net journey may decrease. (Mine would stay the same but improve because it is direct). This may never happen now as DFT are already nervous Thameslink is unworkable and pushed the provisional date back to 2020.

St Albans is a lot busier that WGC despite a smaller town according to the census. Is this because it has a decent train service?

 

[Downthelane]

The 7.52 connects to a Core service at Finsbury Park in May?

Same platform at Finsbury Park or too early to say?

If it did connect and your destination was Farringdon then the net travel time might be the same or less than connecting at St Pancras?

In this scenario WGC loses the non stop fast but Hatfield and Potters Bar gain an extra stopper.

I take your point regarding points at Welwyn and Marshmoor, where does the 7.55 currently switch.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 7.52 connects to a Core service at Finsbury Park in May?

Same platform at Finsbury Park or too early to say?

If it did connect and your destination was Farringdon then the net travel time might be the same or less than connecting at St Pancras?

In this scenario WGC loses the non stop fast but Hatfield and Potters Bar gain an extra stopper.

I take your point regarding points at Welwyn and Marshmoor, where does the 7.55 currently switch.

Depends on what is happening. WGC, Marshmoor or even new Barnet. I suspect that is why it doesn’t stop at Hatfield today to give the signaller flexibility.

Knowing Finsbury Park for changing into the city branch. Changing there is not a good thing. You often can’t physically board.

 

[Downthelane]

I know Finsbury Park isn't ideal but if there was a regular Core service to align with the semi-fasts the outcome for those travelling to KGX and beyond might not be too different.

 

[Failed Unit]

I know with all changes we have winners and losers.

The slowing down of the service, without the compensation of the Thameslink core and the loss of the ability to travel north with a single change at Peterborough isn’t a positive thing. I know I can change at Kings Cross but is that really what the railway wants. More people heading south when they used to use the excess capacity going north.

We will also see how robust the timetable is. I expect lots of skip stopping on the Moorgate trains to avoid the timetable collapsing.

 

[Downthelane]

You haven't answered my above question about connections for the users of the southern end of GN.

Do you happen to know the frequency of the through Core stoppers at Finbury Park.

 

[Failed Unit]

You haven't answered my above question about connections for the users of the southern end of GN.

Do you happen to know the frequency of the through Core stoppers at Finbury Park.

Honestly don’t know. Reading the various press releases it is hard to piece it together.

The timetable plan had the following.

Cambridge- Brighton 2tph (is this now 1?)
Peterborough- Horsham 2tph (still 2?)
Welwyn - Sevenoaks 2tph (now 0)
Cambridge- Maidstone 2tph (now 0)

Could be 3, maybe less. The website GTR set up is constantly changing. Highlighting only off peak improvements.

Will need to wait until March to see how many of the 8 proposed in the consultation make it into the core. 3 seems to be the best guess.

 

[IrishDave]

Honestly don’t know. Reading the various press releases it is hard to piece it together.

The timetable plan had the following.

Cambridge- Brighton 2tph (is this now 1?)
Peterborough- Horsham 2tph (still 2?)
Welwyn - Sevenoaks 2tph (now 0)
Cambridge- Maidstone 2tph (now 0)

Could be 3, maybe less. The website GTR set up is constantly changing. Highlighting only off peak improvements.

Will need to wait until March to see how many of the 8 proposed in the consultation make it into the core. 3 seems to be the best guess.

This press release from November (which was subsequently reported in RAIL magazine) states that:

• Peterborough-Horsham 2tph starts in May 2018.
• Cambridge-Brighton starts as 1tph in May 2018 and increases to 2tph in December 2018.
• Welwyn-Sevenoaks 2tph (peak only) starts in May 2019.
• Cambridge-Maidstone 2tph starts in December 2019.

Additionally, Bedford-Littlehampton starts as 1tph (peak only) in May 2018 and increases to 2tph (peak only) in December 2018. This gives 18tph through the core in May 2018, 20tph in December 2018, 22tph in May 2019 and 24tph in December 2019.

Has there been anything concrete to suggest a deviation from that plan since November?

 

[Downthelane]

So if that is the case and is 3/8 there is no need to change the GN timetable and impact WGC etc. They keep what they have and they run same speed and calling pattern to KGX. Are you suggesting that until 8/8 are running then southern GN has to have a drastically reduced service?
Why would the initial three long distance services need to impact everyone to the south? That doesn't make sense. The 3/8 paths replace other trains so until all 8 are running the timetable has to include both.

 

[Failed Unit]

So if that is the case and is 3/8 there is no need to change the GN timetable and impact WGC etc. They keep what they have and they run same speed and calling pattern to KGX. Are you suggesting that until 8/8 are running then southern GN has to have a drastically reduced service?
Why would the initial three long distance services need to impact everyone to the south? That doesn't make sense. The 3/8 paths replace other trains so until all 8 are running the timetable has to include both.

The service is reduced compared to what we have today is my point. It is just as lose out because we are still going to Kings cross in a slower time than today. (With less seats) and lose services to Peterborough many of the passengers will go south as the connection time at Stevenage is not acceptable adding to the overcrowding.

As for the dates that the we see 8/8 going through the core. Does anyone seriously believe this is ever going to happen? They have slipped it because they don’t believe is achievable. They don’t want an operation princes. We all know what happened there. Come 2020 and idea of Cambridge- Maidstone and WGC to Sevenoaks will quietly be forgotten about.

 

[Downthelane]

But why do you think the slower services will be launched in May 18 when the original Core services have been 'paused'. There is no need to implement the other 5/8 Core paths until the full service can run.

 

[TheDavibob]

But why do you think the slower services will be launched in May 18 when the original Core services have been 'paused'. There is no need to implement the other 5/8 Core paths until the full service can run.

Some of them already exist, at least in part. The GN half of Cambridge-Maidstone exists as the hourly Cambridge all-shacks, for example, and that won't be going anywhere in May. Pretty sure the Welwyn peak extras already exist from Kings Cross, too -- Thameslink isn't inventing that many new services out of thin air. Only the extra Cambridge semi-fast and slow don't already exist.

 

[Failed Unit]

Some of them already exist, at least in part. The GN half of Cambridge-Maidstone exists as the hourly Cambridge all-shacks, for example, and that won't be going anywhere in May. Pretty sure the Welwyn peak extras already exist from Kings Cross, too -- Thameslink isn't inventing that many new services out of thin air. Only the extra Cambridge semi-fast and slow don't already exist.

Correct. The timetable recast is happening in May irrespective to slow them down / destroy direct trains to Peterborough. GTR are advertising that. Well the improvements off peak anyway. The never mention the negative side. (The worse peak service).

 

[ScotGG]

Is it correct some Thameslink trains will start stopping at London Bridge again from Monday? Thameslink tweeted that earlier

 

[ijmad]

Sounds like it...
https://twitter.com/NetworkRailLBG/status/958679515299045376

 

[gingerheid]

Out of interest. ..

How do people rate the %age chances of the full service ever arriving?

It seems to rely on trains that are currently reasonably unreliable arriving from a huge variety of destinations in perfect sync and with perfect timing?

 

[Minstral25]

This press release from November (which was subsequently reported in RAIL magazine) states that:

• Peterborough-Horsham 2tph starts in May 2018.
• Cambridge-Brighton starts as 1tph in May 2018 and increases to 2tph in December 2018.
• Welwyn-Sevenoaks 2tph (peak only) starts in May 2019.
• Cambridge-Maidstone 2tph starts in December 2019.

Additionally, Bedford-Littlehampton starts as 1tph (peak only) in May 2018 and increases to 2tph (peak only) in December 2018. This gives 18tph through the core in May 2018, 20tph in December 2018, 22tph in May 2019 and 24tph in December 2019.

Has there been anything concrete to suggest a deviation from that plan since November?

Whilst that is the list that runs through the Core, my understanding from the last GTR Stakeholders meeting was that the missing services will still run either side of the core. That is Welwyn to Sevenoaks will run as Welwyn to Kings Cross and then as a separate train from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks (SouthEastern service), and Cambridge to Maidstone will be Cambridge to Kings Cross and Blackfriars to Maidstone (via Elephant not London Bridge as a SouthEastern Service).

I assume SouthEastern are drafted in to run south of the river because Thameslink will not have enough stock to run both sides at once, plus it gives an opportunity to spread driver training on 700's over a longer period.

The only exception was the Cambridge to Brighton where only the single service would run to December 2018, I think they said due to a restriction at Cambridge rather than in the core.

 

[ijmad]

Out of interest. ..

How do people rate the %age chances of the full service ever arriving?

It seems to rely on trains that are currently reasonably unreliable arriving from a huge variety of destinations in perfect sync and with perfect timing?

I've always imagined that once the ATO is in place, they'll just squeeze whatever trains turn up through the Core, regardless of what order they may be in or how delayed they might be, and it might work. Could well manage 24tph between Blackfriars and St Pancras, and roughly 16/8 out to London Bridge/Elephant/Finsbury, but nowhere near the clockface timetable to the outermost destinations that those passengers might really want, but they'll have their headline.

 

[bramling]

I've always imagined that once the ATO is in place, they'll just squeeze whatever trains turn up through the Core, regardless of what order they may be in or how delayed they might be, and it might work. Could well manage 24tph between Blackfriars and St Pancras, and roughly 16/8 out to London Bridge/Elephant/Finsbury, but nowhere near the clockface timetable to the outermost destinations that those passengers might really want, but they'll have their headline.

This is how I see it. I don't think the core will necessarily be the issue in terms of throughput, although there could be issues with passenger flows if there's a long gap to a popular destination.

The problem will be if a service is delayed somewhere and it results in a long gap. For example, northbound passengers from King's Cross on GN are used to trains departing right time - any kind of late departure is very much the exception. On today's Thameslink this isn't too much of a problem - St. Albans passengers (who seem to think all of Thameslink is laid on for and around them) are used to 8 tph. Most of the GN services will be 2 tph, which means passengers will be turning up based on the timetable, and they will quite reasonably expect their chosen service to arrive on time. Then you have the issue of small delays turning into bigger delays when one or more trains run off their booked path. Again, this isn't such a major issue on today's Thameslink as there's less clash between stopping patterns. Not so on GN, where you have the all-stations Moorgates, the Potters Bar/Hatfield outers, the fast to Stevenage outers, and the non-stop Ely/Kings Lynn services, all of which tangle up with each other at various locations. You can't just rely on layovers at the country end, because of the single-line sections on the Kings Lynn section, which will transmit delays between down and up services. Delays and service recovery measures will hit very hard on 2 tph services.

Personally I'd be much happier with the existing GN service largely retained, and Thameslink superimposed on top.

 

[Ianno87]

Personally I'd be much happier with the existing GN service largely retained, and Thameslink superimposed on top.

Two words: Welwyn viaduct.