Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[paul332]

I think most people will learn to abide with the service pattern when it settles down and is reliable. Commuting patterns will change, some services may eventually evolve to take account of inequities and dissatisfactions.

What is unacceptable and unforgivable is the random slashing of services that many rely upon to get to work/leisure/connections/flights etc, the gaps of up to 4 hours highlighted here. For my part there was a 75-minute gap in the northbound peak from Cricklewood and Hendon this morning in what should be (and was before the upheaval) a 15-minute service. Critical for those travelling to Luton Airport. And quite a few other gaps of an hour today and earlier this week. Trivial I know compared to others in the scheme of things.

This is unacceptable and unforgivable because of (a) the apparent ongoing complete planning disregard of successive cancellations; and (b) the lack of appropriate training and induction during the many months before implementation.

Oh, and looking at the overall cancellations, which on the face of it seem to be improving, the underlying timetable has been revised to exclude quite a few services therefore apparently showing an improvement (for performance penalty aversion, no doubt), as discussed elsewhere. This is quite simply disingenuous and deceptive.

To my mind people in GTR, DfT and NR responsible for this debacle should be identified, held accountable and shamed.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I'm not joking - which is possibly is why many forum users seem to disagree with you on this and in the other threads.

Then the impact in terms of number of services and people affected was also far higher elsewhere previously. Everyone accepts that Medway users aren't having good time of things at the moment but it is not unprecedented (far from it) or the worst in recent years.
There are 2 separate issues that you don't seem to be able to dissociate:
a) the new service pattern - lots of places have and will face this over the next few years as result of growing passenger numbers and it is inevitable unfortunately given the network that exists and what you can realistically do with it. Look at the Redhill area users complaints since 2014 for example (you'll recognise everything you say has been said before in regards to Redhill etc. (I have nothing to do with Redhill by the way) permanently slower journeys with the removal of semi fast services that we 1 or 2 stops to Victoria or London Bridge with 15minute longer journey times and having to change if going further south more than 3 stops. Your situation is not unique in the GTR area let alone nationally over the last half decade. The same will be seen on GWR and SWR at the end of this year and C2C have been trying to do the same for years as all the growth hasn't been in the traditional Fenchurch Street to Greater Southend market and they face huge backlash from their traditional core users to any change as they refuse to acknowledge times change and new growth patterns. It worth having good look at some of the historic mega threads on these from before you joined the forum. Many of the older forum members have seen this all before many many times so everyone should try to appreciate other view points and fact base.

b) GTR not having enough trained drivers

a) is not going away but b) will improve

I agree with most of what you say, I’m fine with most posters disagreeing with what I say,I disagree with what they say most of the time.

I understand that due to the programme, Cannon Street empty trains can no longer use the curve between there and Blackfriars to shift empty stock, therefore reducing Greenwich line trains to Canon Street to 4tph (though after 2022 this won’t be an issue probably since Sidcup and Hayes trains will no longer use Cannon Street) so the Thameslink service keeps Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park at their usual 6tph, this I understand and support.

And I understand about growth too, and that’s fair enough, however the Elephant in the room is that Thameslink have gone out of their way remove conflicting moves only to have this at NKE, which kinda makes the simplification of lines into London Bridge somewhat redundant.

Another fact is that this neck of the woods will soon have Crossrail, which will partially parallel the Woolwich line between Abbey Wood and Woolwich itself on a different alignment, Plumstead and Slade Green already had a decent amount of trains per hour, yet some on here would have us believe that that is unreasonable, my point is is that a lot of traffic will go to Crossrail, whose to say those who use Plumstead now will use it in a few months time when Woolwich Crossrail opens? Passenger numbers on the Woolwich line could fall on this streach of line so therefore it’s perfectly justifiable to keep the fasts.

Also we’re nearly two weeks into this mess and it’s not giving myself or others hope that this will improve, try telling the people of Higham that things will improve when they’ve basically been without a service for several days now, Thameslink have had sometime to prepare for this And instead it’s become a shambles.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Sad that I've seen someone reporting that they have lost their job as a result of repeat lateness getting to work following recent cancellations on services from Hitchin.

 

[Southern313]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44311928

Meanwhile the Thameslink Twitter team appear to have dropped themselves in it. Another fine example of how not to do social media!

 

[bramling]

I'm not joking - which is possibly is why many forum users seem to disagree with you on this and in the other threads.

Then the impact in terms of number of services and people affected was also far higher elsewhere previously. Everyone accepts that Medway users aren't having good time of things at the moment but it is not unprecedented (far from it) or the worst in recent years.
There are 2 separate issues that you don't seem to be able to dissociate:
a) the new service pattern - lots of places have and will face this over the next few years as result of growing passenger numbers and it is inevitable unfortunately given the network that exists and what you can realistically do with it. Look at the Redhill area users complaints since 2014 for example (you'll recognise everything you say has been said before in regards to Redhill etc. (I have nothing to do with Redhill by the way) permanently slower journeys with the removal of semi fast services that we 1 or 2 stops to Victoria or London Bridge with 15minute longer journey times and having to change if going further south more than 3 stops. Your situation is not unique in the GTR area let alone nationally over the last half decade. The same will be seen on GWR and SWR at the end of this year and C2C have been trying to do the same for years as all the growth hasn't been in the traditional Fenchurch Street to Greater Southend market and they face huge backlash from their traditional core users to any change as they refuse to acknowledge times change and new growth patterns. It worth having good look at some of the historic mega threads on these from before you joined the forum. Many of the older forum members have seen this all before many many times so everyone should try to appreciate other view points and fact base.

b) GTR not having enough trained drivers

a) is not going away but b) will improve

The elephant in the room does indeed seem to be population growth in London itself, which is in turn causing more journeys in London, and at the same time there seems to be an exodus from London to the Home Counties. Certainly in my town it’s pretty much guaranteed that any home on the market will be taken by a couple who have moved because they’re “fed up with London”. This simply isn’t sustainable as it’s placing an unmanageable burden on infrastructure - try making a journey on something like the A1M or M1 in the peaks to see this. I bet it’s the same in Medway and Southend.

If Brexit achieves a reduction in population growth (and it’s a big if) then that may be the single best thing it can do for Britain.

Bringing things back closer to topic, this doesn’t automatically mean Thameslink is the best solution to the immediate issue. Commuters also need reliability, and Thameslink has a proven track record of poor delivery in this respect. The concept works best on high-frequency high-density routes like London to St Albans. It simply doesn’t work so well on longer and less frequent routes, where there is a mix of stopping patterns. In that sense I think Medway, Cambridge and Peterborough can all be lumped together - long distance and low frequency (less than 4tph). Remember too it’s not all about London - there are a lot of important local journeys in and out of places like Cambridge, Peterborough, Stevenage, Welwyn and Hatfield (or, presumably, Higham to Chatham or Northfleet to Rochester), all of which contribute to the local economy as well as keeping cars off the motorways. These journeys, not all of which will be at peak times, *need* dependability, reliability and punctuality, not the Thameslink lottery of a 10-minute journey risking taking an hour or more.

If we must have Thameslink to these destinations as a way of running extra services then it should be *on top of* the old service, so that destinations are not left wholly reliant on Thameslink. I don’t think this is unreasonable, nor is it unworkable when the said old service has happily run for many years so no one can say the capacity isn’t there to run it.

King’s Cross has a lot of spare capacity - plenty of 5-car and 8-car trains occupying 12-car length platforms still. For many years on GN the limiting factor has been lack of rolling stock to lengthen services beyond 8-car, or in some cases 4-car. Despite this GN was never as heavily overcrowded as some areas with crush loading virtually non existent, especially on the outer suburban services. Overcrowding was always worse on the inners, especially Hertford, and these changes do little to address that beyond a bit of extra space on the 717s when they come. As an example of how things could be better, send a few 700s to Hertford and run 365s to Peterborough or Cambridge instead.

 

[Robert Symonds]

I agree with most of what you say, I’m fine with most posters disagreeing with what I say,I disagree with what they say most of the time.

I understand that due to the programme, Cannon Street empty trains can no longer use the curve between there and Blackfriars to shift empty stock, therefore reducing Greenwich line trains to Canon Street to 4tph (though after 2022 this won’t be an issue probably since Sidcup and Hayes trains will no longer use Cannon Street) so the Thameslink service keeps Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park at their usual 6tph, this I understand and support.

And I understand about growth too, and that’s fair enough, however the Elephant in the room is that Thameslink have gone out of their way remove conflicting moves only to have this at NKE, which kinda makes the simplification of lines into London Bridge somewhat redundant.

Another fact is that this neck of the woods will soon have Crossrail, which will partially parallel the Woolwich line between Abbey Wood and Woolwich itself on a different alignment, Plumstead and Slade Green already had a decent amount of trains per hour, yet some on here would have us believe that that is unreasonable, my point is is that a lot of traffic will go to Crossrail, whose to say those who use Plumstead now will use it in a few months time when Woolwich Crossrail opens? Passenger numbers on the Woolwich line could fall on this streach of line so therefore it’s perfectly justifiable to keep the fasts.

Also we’re nearly two weeks into this mess and it’s not giving myself or others hope that this will improve, try telling the people of Higham that things will improve when they’ve basically been without a service for several days now, Thameslink have had sometime to prepare for this And instead it’s become a shambles.

I really don't understand why the highspeed does not stop at Higham, which would at least give them some sort of service.Theres plenty of give as the highspeed is really padded timewise to it gets to Gravesend.Southeastern should be forced to do this.Instead Higham gets a bus service to Strood and then gets on the very same highspeed service that passes through Higham.Totally ludicrous and a waste of money.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I really don't understand why the highspeed does not stop at Higham, which would at least give them some sort of service.Theres plenty of give as the highspeed is really padded timewise to it gets to Gravesend.Southeastern should be forced to do this.Instead Higham gets a bus service to Strood and then get on a the very same highspeed service that passes from Higham.Totally ludicrous and a waste of money.

I know, it wouldn’t even add any time by stopping at Higham, a minute tops? If I lived in Higham I would demand some sort of refund!

 

[jon0844]

Statements have been made today by Network Rail, GTR and Northern:

Mark Carne, Chief Executive, Network Rail:

"There is no doubt that the May timetable was finalised significantly later than normal for reasons that were both within and without our control. The consequences of that have been particularly hard for both Northern and GTR to absorb.

"But we are all firmly focussed on fixing this issue as quickly as possible to give passengers the reliable service they need and deserve. At the moment, in some parts of the country, that simply isn’t happening and for that I’d like to wholeheartedly apologise."

Charles Horton, CEO, GTR:

"We always said that delivering the biggest timetable change in generations would be challenging – but we are sorry that we have not been able to deliver the service that passengers expect. Delayed approval of the timetable led to an unexpected need to substantially adjust our plans and resources. We fully understand that passengers want more certainty and are working very hard to bring greater consistency to the timetable as soon as possible. We will also be working with industry colleagues to establish a timetable that will progressively deliver improvement."

David Brown, Managing Director, Northern:

"We are doing everything we can to minimise cancellations and keep customers informed. It has been extremely difficult for many of our customers, in particular on a number of routes around north Manchester, Liverpool, and Blackpool extending up to Cumbria, and we are truly sorry for this.

"We‘ve agreed a number of actions with the Department for Transport and are urgently working with them on a comprehensive plan to stabilise our services. Such a plan is likely to take a number of weeks to deliver lasting improvements, but we recognise our customers deserve better and that’s what we’re focused on."

 

[AM9]

I'm not joking - which is possibly is why many forum users seem to disagree with you on this and in the other threads.

Then the impact in terms of number of services and people affected was also far higher elsewhere previously. Everyone accepts that Medway users aren't having good time of things at the moment but it is not unprecedented (far from it) or the worst in recent years.
There are 2 separate issues that you don't seem to be able to dissociate:
a) the new service pattern - lots of places have and will face this over the next few years as result of growing passenger numbers and it is inevitable unfortunately given the network that exists and what you can realistically do with it. Look at the Redhill area users complaints since 2014 for example (you'll recognise everything you say has been said before in regards to Redhill etc. (I have nothing to do with Redhill by the way) permanently slower journeys with the removal of semi fast services that we 1 or 2 stops to Victoria or London Bridge with 15minute longer journey times and having to change if going further south more than 3 stops. Your situation is not unique in the GTR area let alone nationally over the last half decade. The same will be seen on GWR and SWR at the end of this year and C2C have been trying to do the same for years as all the growth hasn't been in the traditional Fenchurch Street to Greater Southend market and they face huge backlash from their traditional core users to any change as they refuse to acknowledge times change and new growth patterns. It worth having good look at some of the historic mega threads on these from before you joined the forum. Many of the older forum members have seen this all before many many times so everyone should try to appreciate other view points and fact base.

b) GTR not having enough trained drivers

a) is not going away but b) will improve

Ah, a piece of reasoning amongst a torrent of rants. The bottom line as you say is increased passenger traffic requires increased capacity from where the commuters reside to where they work. Rather obvious really, but unless unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment takes place, (it won't!), measures such as:

higher capacity rolling stock
shorter dwells
shorter headways
more trains per station​

are the only practical ways ahead.

So to examine what the aims of the changes are and how they address the above needs (i.e. not repeatedly dwelling on the current logistic mess) they include:

higher capacity rolling stock - the class 700s have the highest maximum capacity per unit length of any MU type, not necessarily all seated but carried in safety. The next step is to ensure either that stations can accomodate the longest practical trains or where not too onerous in for dwells, make good use of SDO.*
shorter dwells - the class 700s have wide doors, through gangways together with information that enable passengers to make the best use of the space giving much quicker ingress and egress*
shorter headways - signalling plays its part in terms of minimising headways, but greater acceleration also enhances the ability to reach linespeed, (which in turn reduces the additional headway consumed by station stops
more trains per station - on a two-track railway, there is little opportunity for flighting once train frequencies approach minimum headways. The only alternative is to stop at as many stations as there is passengers demand. Not doing this would increase dwell times and cause delays to following trains​

* The class 700s have been in full use on the main Thameslink routes for over a year. Passengers normally would like to have seats whenever they travel, but provided that standing is safe and as far as possible comfortable, it sure beats not being able to board a train at all which is simply not addressing the capacity problem at all. This has been appreciated by many, even those who still have their grumble that the seat design doesn't suit them.
SDO can be used on stations that have less than half the required platform length and adequate sighting with some staff support but sometimes waiting for passengers to get to the nearest open doors can increase dwells.
The fast opening and wide doors on the class 700s shorten dwells to the minimum practical delay as does the through gangway which is better than the squeezing between seats on conventional outer suburban stock.

Of course, not every new train in the timetable will work as well as planned and there will be refinemants based on experience of the current timetable once it isn't beset with driver logistic issues. Few timetables anywhere on railways are set in stone. The suggestion of stopping HS1 trains at Higham would seem to be a sensible temporary arrangement, - maybe the DfT might direct (and pay for) SE to arrange it for a while.

I note that a poster has acknowledged the rising commuter population being the underlying cause of these measures citing the worsening delays on the M1 and A1M (and no doubt the A2/M2) but even that is a part of a bigger picture with speed linits on roads constantly falling, especially between towns and smaller settlements, so the alternative for some will not get any better. When a minor A-road between two towns had a section of 60mph once outside the built-up areas, that same road will now have a 40mph limit because there are a couple of additional roundabouts where major developments spill their feeder road traffic onto the through routes. Waiting for the UK leaving the EU is not really an option (if it happens at all).

 

[jon0844]

SDO can be used on stations that have less than half the required platform length and adequate sighting with some staff support but sometimes waiting for passengers to get to the nearest open doors can increase dwells.
The fast opening and wide doors on the class 700s shorten dwells to the minimum practical delay as does the through gangway which is better than the squeezing between seats on conventional outer suburban stock.

Of course, not every new train in the timetable will work as well as planned and there will be refinemants based on experience of the current timetable once it isn't beset with driver logistic issues. Few timetables anywhere on railways are set in stone. The suggestion of stopping HS1 trains at Higham would seem to be a sensible temporary arrangement, - maybe the DfT might direct (and pay for) SE to arrange it for a while.

I note that a poster has acknowledged the rising commuter population being the underlying cause of these measures citing the worsening delays on the M1 and A1M (and no doubt the A2/M2) but even that is a part of a bigger picture with speed linits on roads constantly falling, especially between towns and smaller settlements, so the alternative for some will not get any better. When a minor A-road between two towns had a section of 60mph once outside the built-up areas, that same road will now have a 40mph limit because there are a couple of additional roundabouts where major developments spill their feeder road traffic onto the through routes. Waiting for the UK leaving the EU is not really an option (if it happens at all).

I saw at Hatfield how effective an empty 700/1 was at swallowing up people from a festival, but a 12 car train in an 8 car platform (or 8 on a 4 car platform) could never work normally. For one, the train was held a good few minutes and even with 15+ staff on the platform to herd passengers along, few walked down the 4 coaches. The train went out full and standing for the 8 cars on the platform and maybe 2 coaches back, with a few people who did walk down and had the rear coach all to themselves.

Maybe they spread out a bit when the train left, I don't know.

SDO is therefore something that isn't likely to be the solution to capacity limitations in years to come. Proper platform extensions will be the only solution, which costs money.. in some cases a LOT of money.

 

[Silver Cobra]

While there's still a lot of cancellations today, it does seem that the Peterborough services that have operated have largely run to time or with only minimal delays. Using departures from Arlesey on RTT as my reference point, I saw only three trains so far today that were delayed by 15 minutes or more, with the worst culprit being the 0925 departure to Horsham at 25 minutes late. All the rest have been on time or no more than 1-5 minutes late.

Could we be seeing the turning point for the new timetable, at least with regards to Peterborough services? I may be being a bit too optimistic, but it would be nice if it was.

 

[47421]

Very weak statements. Ten days into this and that is all they can manage. Embarrassing and sad that such senior people have nothing more to say.

 

[Failed Unit]

Statements have been made today by Network Rail, GTR and Northern:

Mark Carne, Chief Executive, Network Rail:

"There is no doubt that the May timetable was finalised significantly later than normal for reasons that were both within and without our control. The consequences of that have been particularly hard for both Northern and GTR to absorb.

"But we are all firmly focussed on fixing this issue as quickly as possible to give passengers the reliable service they need and deserve. At the moment, in some parts of the country, that simply isn’t happening and for that I’d like to wholeheartedly apologise."

Charles Horton, CEO, GTR:

"We always said that delivering the biggest timetable change in generations would be challenging – but we are sorry that we have not been able to deliver the service that passengers expect. Delayed approval of the timetable led to an unexpected need to substantially adjust our plans and resources. We fully understand that passengers want more certainty and are working very hard to bring greater consistency to the timetable as soon as possible. We will also be working with industry colleagues to establish a timetable that will progressively deliver improvement."

David Brown, Managing Director, Northern:

"We are doing everything we can to minimise cancellations and keep customers informed. It has been extremely difficult for many of our customers, in particular on a number of routes around north Manchester, Liverpool, and Blackpool extending up to Cumbria, and we are truly sorry for this.

"We‘ve agreed a number of actions with the Department for Transport and are urgently working with them on a comprehensive plan to stabilise our services. Such a plan is likely to take a number of weeks to deliver lasting improvements, but we recognise our customers deserve better and that’s what we’re focused on."

I don’t get these statements.

Is the timetable workable (as in we assume we have all resources we need) - if the answer is yes then surely network rail have done their job.

I no.....

If the timetable is workable the surely GTR need to work out what to do for consistency. What is upsetting most passengers is they can’t plan. If the 0633 x-y is cancelled until the end of June not good but better than currently waking up and seeing what they have withdrawn from journey planners then going to the station to find they have cancelled the one you are going for.

 

[mmh]

Ah, a piece of reasoning amongst a torrent of rants. The bottom line as you say is increased passenger traffic requires increased capacity from where the commuters reside to where they work.

OK, so while I don't think the only consideration for the running of a railway stretching 150 miles should be commuters, yes, it's

Rather obvious really, but unless unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment takes place, (it won't!)

An unprecedented investment in infrastructure has taken place!

, measures such as:

higher capacity rolling stock
shorter dwells
shorter headways
more trains per station​

are the only practical ways ahead.

shorter dwells marginally speed up journey times, they become important when you're trying to push towards the heigher limits of throughput, so 700s are designed with the aim of short dwells in the Thameslink core. The downside of short dwells is the need for strict punctuality and the inability to recover if something goes slightly wrong. In the new timetable, dwell times, outside the core, have mostly increased with the aim of improving reliability. Throughput on a 2 or 4tph route isn't an issue.

So to examine what the aims of the changes are and how they address the above needs (i.e. not repeatedly dwelling on the current logistic mess) they include:

higher capacity rolling stock - the class 700s have the highest maximum capacity per unit length of any MU type, not necessarily all seated but carried in safety. The next step is to ensure either that stations can accomodate the longest practical trains or where not too onerous in for dwells, make good use of SDO.*​

This has not happened in many situations. 8 car units are diagrammed on routes which should be 12, while conversely SDO is routinely used at stations where it hasn't been commonly used before.

shorter dwells - the class 700s have wide doors, through gangways together with information that enable passengers to make the best use of the space giving much quicker ingress and egress*
shorter headways - signalling plays its part in terms of minimising headways, but greater acceleration also enhances the ability to reach linespeed, (which in turn reduces the additional headway consumed by station stops
more trains per station - on a two-track railway, there is little opportunity for flighting once train frequencies approach minimum headways. The only alternative is to stop at as many stations as there is passengers demand. Not doing this would increase dwell times and cause delays to following trains

The Thameslink "core route" (as in the traditional Bedford - Brighton route, not the tunnelled section) is largely a four-track railway. On these new additional two-track routes, Thameslink is not increasing frequency, the services have replaced previous services. Talk of approaching line capacity isn't going to persuade someone with a 2tph (if they're lucky) service.

​

* The class 700s have been in full use on the main Thameslink routes for over a year. Passengers normally would like to have seats whenever they travel, but provided that standing is safe and as far as possible comfortable, it sure beats not being able to board a train at all which is simply not addressing the capacity problem at all. This has been appreciated by many, even those who still have their grumble that the seat design doesn't suit them.

Again, the new Thameslink routes south of the Thames are not addressing any capacity problem. They've not added capacity, they've simply replaced existing services. I'm not going to comment on seats, there's far too much of that on this forum really but I'll agree people will probably stop complaining about the train interiors as much. If you don't have a train you tend to focus on that rather than the layout of the train you didn't have.

SDO can be used on stations that have less than half the required platform length and adequate sighting with some staff support but sometimes waiting for passengers to get to the nearest open doors can increase dwells.

I think I'm probably misreading that - are you suggesting opening 3 cars on an 8 car train, or 5 cars on a 12 car train? That surely can't apply anywhere.

The fast opening and wide doors on the class 700s shorten dwells to the minimum practical delay as does the through gangway which is better than the squeezing between seats on conventional outer suburban stock.

The through gangway design is because it was thought it'd be a "tube-like" service through London, not because it would be particularly useful at Brighton or Peterborough. If it *is* useful outside London that's a sign the service has failed, trains shouldn't be at capacity when a new system has just opened before it's attracted any new latent demand onto the network.

But that's the big Thameslink 2000 dilemma - what is it for? You've said it's not conventional outer suburban stock and I agree, it isn't - it's quasi inner suburbab stock running to outer suburban and regional destinations. (I know lots of people think the only point of a railway is to ferry people to and from London but I don't, so I'm not going to insult places like Peterborough and Cambridge by describing them as outer suburbs - they're regional centres in their own right)

 

[hwl]

I don’t get these statements.

Is the timetable workable (as in we assume we have all resources we need) - if the answer is yes then surely network rail have done their job.

I no.....

If the timetable is workable then surely GTR need to work out what to do for consistency. What is upsetting most passengers is they can’t plan. If the 0633 x-y is cancelled until the end of June not good but better than currently waking up and seeing what they have withdrawn from journey planners then going to the station to find they have cancelled the one you are going for.

The timetable will work very nicely from everything I've seen. The problems is that GTR were probably too over optimistic in resourcing and submitted a TT to NR which was based around minimsing driver resource that was highly sensitive to certain timing being no different tot what they planned by a few minutes. NR then comes back with something that works for all TOCs and meets planning rules (GTR probably bent a few planning rules to their benefit and apparently there submissions were poor quality too) at which point GTR find they need a lot more drivers and or drivers trained for day 1. If GTR were overly optimistic in resource planning and expecting to get everything they wanted then they are fault (for being on another planet for starters).

 

[bramling]

Ah, a piece of reasoning amongst a torrent of rants. The bottom line as you say is increased passenger traffic requires increased capacity from where the commuters reside to where they work. Rather obvious really, but unless unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment takes place, (it won't!), measures such as:

higher capacity rolling stock
shorter dwells
shorter headways
more trains per station​

are the only practical ways ahead.

So to examine what the aims of the changes are and how they address the above needs (i.e. not repeatedly dwelling on the current logistic mess) they include:

higher capacity rolling stock - the class 700s have the highest maximum capacity per unit length of any MU type, not necessarily all seated but carried in safety. The next step is to ensure either that stations can accomodate the longest practical trains or where not too onerous in for dwells, make good use of SDO.*
shorter dwells - the class 700s have wide doors, through gangways together with information that enable passengers to make the best use of the space giving much quicker ingress and egress*
shorter headways - signalling plays its part in terms of minimising headways, but greater acceleration also enhances the ability to reach linespeed, (which in turn reduces the additional headway consumed by station stops
more trains per station - on a two-track railway, there is little opportunity for flighting once train frequencies approach minimum headways. The only alternative is to stop at as many stations as there is passengers demand. Not doing this would increase dwell times and cause delays to following trains​

* The class 700s have been in full use on the main Thameslink routes for over a year. Passengers normally would like to have seats whenever they travel, but provided that standing is safe and as far as possible comfortable, it sure beats not being able to board a train at all which is simply not addressing the capacity problem at all. This has been appreciated by many, even those who still have their grumble that the seat design doesn't suit them.
SDO can be used on stations that have less than half the required platform length and adequate sighting with some staff support but sometimes waiting for passengers to get to the nearest open doors can increase dwells.
The fast opening and wide doors on the class 700s shorten dwells to the minimum practical delay as does the through gangway which is better than the squeezing between seats on conventional outer suburban stock.

Of course, not every new train in the timetable will work as well as planned and there will be refinemants based on experience of the current timetable once it isn't beset with driver logistic issues. Few timetables anywhere on railways are set in stone. The suggestion of stopping HS1 trains at Higham would seem to be a sensible temporary arrangement, - maybe the DfT might direct (and pay for) SE to arrange it for a while.

I note that a poster has acknowledged the rising commuter population being the underlying cause of these measures citing the worsening delays on the M1 and A1M (and no doubt the A2/M2) but even that is a part of a bigger picture with speed linits on roads constantly falling, especially between towns and smaller settlements, so the alternative for some will not get any better. When a minor A-road between two towns had a section of 60mph once outside the built-up areas, that same road will now have a 40mph limit because there are a couple of additional roundabouts where major developments spill their feeder road traffic onto the through routes. Waiting for the UK leaving the EU is not really an option (if it happens at all).

As usual your post reads like a pretty depressing vision of a Britain you seem to wish to inflict on everyone (else), and ignores a range of valid and important factors, from Thameslink reliability to the fact that Thameslink is in many ways a poor solution, particularly the way the current plan locks some routes into 8 cars - 16 wider doors is not as good as 24 normal width doors.

I don’t believe there should be this idea that population growth should be regarded as inevitable - it shouldn’t. The south-east in particular simply struggles to support the population it has now, let alone more. The normal economic forces of supply and demand interacting to produce market price should be used to allocate and if necessary ration scarce resources.

As for Brexit never happening, if Mystic AM9 Predicts is as accurate as it was on seat-back tables then I’ll get the champagne ready for next year. In the meantime Mystic Bramling predicted the trains would be unpopular and the service disastrously unreliable, which is exactly what we’ve seen, in fact much worse than anyone thought was possible. I know where I would place my bets.

 

[mmh]

As usual your post reads like a pretty depressing vision of a Britain you seem to wish to inflict on everyone, and ignores a range of valid and important factors, from Thameslink reliability to the fact that Thameslink is in many ways a poor solution, particularly the way the current plan locks some routes into 8 cars - 16 wider doors is not as good as 24 normal width doors.

I found it quite strange that alongside the idea that the Thameslink core would be a tube-like service and provide relief to the Northern Line at the same time the core was going to be used for full length trains and ones which only used two thirds of the platform.

Apart from the inconvenience to the passenger, isn't it underuse of the core's capacity while at the same time we're being told it must have 28tph to maximise use of it?

If it does become used akin to a tube line, some trains being 2/3rd the length of others will be more than a little chaotic.

 

[NorthKent1989]

As far as Medway is concerned and Higham( which basically now does not have a service)this situation is considerably worse then the rebuild of London Bridge.I can understand some of the changes.However getting rid of the Charing Cross service from Gillingham is ridiculous and has no point whatsoever.

It does have a point stations in inner London can now get 8tph in some locations, they can get to North London, sorry but it’s a sacrifice Medway has to make for a better service in the long run Medway will Ben grateful, another thing, I said that previously the semi fast trains never stopped at Plumstead or Deptford so Medway folk can now have the opportunity to explore those areas or other areas, that were previously unserved by Medway trains.

See the bigger picture and be optimistic

 

[NorthKent1989]

I'm not joking - which is possibly is why many forum users seem to disagree with you on this and in the other threads.

Then the impact in terms of number of services and people affected was also far higher elsewhere previously. Everyone accepts that Medway users aren't having good time of things at the moment but it is not unprecedented (far from it) or the worst in recent years.
There are 2 separate issues that you don't seem to be able to dissociate:
a) the new service pattern - lots of places have and will face this over the next few years as result of growing passenger numbers and it is inevitable unfortunately given the network that exists and what you can realistically do with it. Look at the Redhill area users complaints since 2014 for example (you'll recognise everything you say has been said before in regards to Redhill etc. (I have nothing to do with Redhill by the way) permanently slower journeys with the removal of semi fast services that we 1 or 2 stops to Victoria or London Bridge with 15minute longer journey times and having to change if going further south more than 3 stops. Your situation is not unique in the GTR area let alone nationally over the last half decade. The same will be seen on GWR and SWR at the end of this year and C2C have been trying to do the same for years as all the growth hasn't been in the traditional Fenchurch Street to Greater Southend market and they face huge backlash from their traditional core users to any change as they refuse to acknowledge times change and new growth patterns. It worth having good look at some of the historic mega threads on these from before you joined the forum. Many of the older forum members have seen this all before many many times so everyone should try to appreciate other view points and fact base.

b) GTR not having enough trained drivers

a) is not going away but b) will improve

Thank you! Finally some sense and not constant complaints!

Personally I think all inner London stations should get 8-10tph so to reduce overcrowding and so that inner London travellers don’t have to wait too long for the train and parts of south London could have tube like frequencies, Medway, Redhill etc need to provide these services as dormitory towns, areas like Slade Green need the extra trains, there is a greater good to this

 

[Class465fan]

It does have a point stations in inner London can now get 8tph in some locations, they can get to North London, sorry but it’s a sacrifice Medway has to make for a better service in the long run Medway will Ben grateful, another thing, I said that previously the semi fast trains never stopped at Plumstead or Deptford so Medway folk can now have the opportunity to explore those areas or other areas, that were previously unserved by Medway trains.

See the bigger picture and be optimistic

Did you also plan this new "fantastic" timetable with Govia? Seems like it as you keep on bragging about how brilliant it is when in reality it's not!

 

[mmh]

Thank you! Finally some sense and not constant complaints!

Personally I think all inner London stations should get 8-10tph so to reduce overcrowding and so that inner London travellers don’t have to wait too long for the train and parts of south London could have tube like frequencies, Medway, Redhill etc need to provide these services as dormitory towns, areas like Slade Green need the extra trains, there is a greater good to this

8-10tph for many south London stations would be complete overkill and could back-fire by encouraging excessive population growth in areas which couldn't properly handle it. Not everywhere has to be built on.

It's not helped by business holding onto the idea that offices and jobs have to be in central London when they could just as easily be anywhere. We could do with some decent attempts to reverse that and local authorities having the gumption to support it rather than accept increasing amounts of the south east becoming dormitory towns.

 

[mmh]

Did you also plan this new "fantastic" timetable with Govia? Seems like it as you keep on bragging about how brilliant it is when in reality it's not!

I don't know about that, but it does sound like he's angling for a job with the Thameslink PR department!

the semi fast trains never stopped at Plumstead or Deptford so Medway folk can now have the opportunity to explore those areas

 

[NorthKent1989]

Did you also plan this new "fantastic" timetable with Govia? Seems like it as you keep on bragging about how brilliant it is when in reality it's not!

Haha good joke

I just see that locations need to make sacrifices for the long term, Thameslink is second metro system for London that’s just bigger but only has one core, everything has to fit.

How is it not good? It gives Plumstead and Slade Green a much needed boost, fast trains have no place, it’s pure snobbery that Abbey Wood, Woolwich, Charlton and Blackheath have the fast trains while Plumstead and Slade Green have to put up with a basic service., personally there’s no reason why Erith and Belvedere can’t be added, you not saving any time by skipping them, this will give every station between Slade Green and Charlton 8tph and the Greenwich stations will have 6tph, no more long waits

The timetable will work eventually just give it time, drivers will be trained up and this will help a lot of people.

 

[NorthKent1989]

8-10tph for many south London stations would be complete overkill and could back-fire by encouraging excessive population growth in areas which couldn't properly handle it. Not everywhere has to be built on.

It's not helped by business holding onto the idea that offices and jobs have to be in central London when they could just as easily be anywhere. We could do with some decent attempts to reverse that and local authorities having the gumption to support it rather than accept increasing amounts of the south east becoming dormitory towns.

But homes need to built, there is a massive demand for them, and why overkill for 8-10tph? These stations need the extra trains somewhere.

 

[mmh]

But homes need to built, there is a massive demand for them, and why overkill for 8-10tph? These stations need the extra trains somewhere.

Because they're routes which currently have 2tph outside rush hour mostly carting fresh air around. Take for example London Bridge to Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace - it's 8 carriages of nobody for most of the day.

 

[sefton]

While there's still a lot of cancellations today, it does seem that the Peterborough services that have operated have largely run to time or with only minimal delays. Using departures from Arlesey on RTT as my reference point, I saw only three trains so far today that were delayed by 15 minutes or more, with the worst culprit being the 0925 departure to Horsham at 25 minutes late. All the rest have been on time or no more than 1-5 minutes late.

Could we be seeing the turning point for the new timetable, at least with regards to Peterborough services? I may be being a bit too optimistic, but it would be nice if it was.

No they are not.

There were no trains north to Peterborough between 14.45 and 16.36 this afternoon, so missing three trains out of both the old and new timetables (with the hidden cancelled trains).

So far today 10 southbound trains have been cancelled and no trains are calling at St Neots between 16.18 and 19.48!

Three and a half hours with no trains! Even when the overhead lines come down service isn't this bad.

That is not getting better, it is an utterly crap service which people ought to be getting held to account for.

 

[Class465fan]

How is it not good? It gives Plumstead and Slade Green a much needed boost, fast trains have no place, it’s pure snobbery that Abbey Wood, Woolwich, Charlton and Blackheath have the fast trains while Plumstead and Slade Green have to put up with a basic service., personally there’s no reason why Erith and Belvedere can’t be added, you not saving any time by skipping them, this will give every station between Slade Green and Charlton 8tph and the Greenwich stations will have 6tph, no more long waits

Well in that case lets add mottingham, Lee, Albany park, and hither green to your new semi-fast service sidcup service then to make it a fair play.

 

[bramling]

But homes need to built, there is a massive demand for them, and why overkill for 8-10tph? These stations need the extra trains somewhere.

It’s a matter of your opinion that homes need to be built, and even if we did take that as a given they don’t have to be built in the congested south-east. Use market forces to allocate a scarce resource, just like everything else. In any case what’s the point in building homes for them to be immediately filled and the population size keeps rising - you’re then in the same position ten years down the line, just with a worse standard of living for everyone.

 

[bramling]

8-10tph for many south London stations would be complete overkill and could back-fire by encouraging excessive population growth in areas which couldn't properly handle it. Not everywhere has to be built on.

It's not helped by business holding onto the idea that offices and jobs have to be in central London when they could just as easily be anywhere. We could do with some decent attempts to reverse that and local authorities having the gumption to support it rather than accept increasing amounts of the south east becoming dormitory towns.

The south-east became dormitory towns last century - of one takes the GN route it’s one string of new or expanded towns - Hatfield, Welwyn GC, Stevenage, Sandy. St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Letchworth. There’s only so much which can be sustained, and now we have people commuting from places much further out - Newark, Bath, Rugby etc. It has to end somewhere.

*If* London is comfortable with its population size increasing (although judging by the stressed behaviour of many Londoners when they encounter a challenging situation like a crowded train or blocked road I’d suggest maybe they’re not) then fine - but don’t inflict this on the rest of the south-east.

 

[Class465fan]

Haha good joke

I just see that locations need to make sacrifices for the long term, Thameslink is second metro system for London that’s just bigger but only has one core, everything has to fit.

How is it not good? It gives Plumstead and Slade Green a much needed boost, fast trains have no place, it’s pure snobbery that Abbey Wood, Woolwich, Charlton and Blackheath have the fast trains while Plumstead and Slade Green have to put up with a basic service., personally there’s no reason why Erith and Belvedere can’t be added, you not saving any time by skipping them, this will give every station between Slade Green and Charlton 8tph and the Greenwich stations will have 6tph, no more long waits

The timetable will work eventually just give it time, drivers will be trained up and this will help a lot of people.

Waiting for 5-7 minutes for the next train isn't a long wait though is it? We already got 3 slow services that are going via abbey wood so is their really the need for an extra slow service?