Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[OwenB]

Still no better at weekends. I've a feeling that GTR will never restore the 4 fast trains an hour on the Bedford line.

The weekend timetable is an absolute unusable shambles. Shame on them.

 

[bramling]

I shall be very blunt here. Please report me if you wish.

As i feel offended by what you have posted.

I dont give a fig about what train your talking about.

I was merely stating that sefton was talking about the 1755 ex Horsham - Peterborough which didn't stop at St Neots saving 2 mins (according to Sefton). And you then argued it saved 20 minutes when in fact he had moved on from and now wasn't discussing the train you have referenced above.

And yes i did notice it. Who couldn't tbh, as its taken up a good page or more.

So Please read carefully what you reply and quote before trying to insult my intelligence !!

I was merely trying to point out that you and sefton had your wires crossed ( although i admit in a cheeky manner). But as you appear to want to avoid polite discussion i will go hide in the shadows and contiue to laugh at what some people post on here.

Another example of dubious recovery here:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64317/2018/10/30/advanced

Firstly, a 15-minute delay shouldn't be needing such aggressive recovery measures. That strongly indicates the setup is too fragile.

Secondly, I'm sure people at Stevenage were bemused to see their train pass through non-stop at the right time!

Things are only going to get worse when the Cambridge-KX service gets transformed for good (i.e. running through the core), and those 31-minute turnrounds at King's Cross disappear. Users at Knebworth and Welwyn North should be worried, they will be the new Sandy and Arlesey, more so than they already are.

 

[Failed Unit]

The weekend timetable is an absolute unusable shambles. Shame on them.

Yep. That 2 hour gap on a Saturday evening is really annoy between 2151 and 2351 for stations south of Stevenage.

Before everyone says you can use the slow service. They are frequently cancelled so not much use most of the time.

 

[OrangeJuice]

Is the Thameslink weekend timetable on the MML still based on just two tracks Sunday morning, or should that have finished when the 'improved' timetable was introduced?

Edit: Or was this just when engineering works was taking place in the core?

 

[bramling]

I guess the people at Sandy and Arseley enjoyed the skip stop considering they don’t have other options.

In this instance you can see why GTR skip stop but you see many services that don’t make up anytime as a result of frequently on this “interim” timetable big gaps in frequency opening up as the next service is tactically withdrawn. This happen very frequently Potters Bar, Hatfield, WGC, Welwyn North, Knebworth and the little stations towards Cambridge. But it is for the greater good that stations with no alternative service get skipped.

Has anyone notice how unreliable the 0657 Cambridge- Kings Cross is since it was reinstated? It is skip stopping again today. But it is for the greater good that people that work in WHC / Hatfield travelling from the north are 30 minutes (at least) late. Be interesting how much time this train recovers. But it is frequently late (skip stopping) / cancelled.

As it turned out the delayed train made up a significant amount of time. They stopped a Royston - Kings Cross service at Welwyn Garden city adding 15 minutes delay to it and meaning passengers were only 27 minutes late. I know skip stopping is very divisive. But my view is GTR do it too often with little benefits. Horsham services frequently miss all stations south of East Croydon to save 2 minutes. Cambridge services miss out everything south of Stevenage often giving long gaps as mentioned above. Sometimes they say on the slow and don’t actually recover anything.

Again performance over the past 2 weeks is bad. 5 months after the timetable was introduced we are nowhere near levels of service we had before it was introduced. But it is still all network rails fault.

As it happens, I've spoken to a friend who happened to be at Hitchin at the time in question. As I suspected, people were *left behind* from multiple services at Hitchin as a result of this decision. One such service was the Royston-KX service, so if this was leaving people behind at Hitchin then it will have left people behind at Knebworth and Welwyn North, who of course had already suffered from an unrelated cancellation. The incident also features on the GN twitter feed, which makes for grim reading all-round.

Allegedly the reason given for the cancellation was a "fault with the train which could not be rectified", which is interesting considering the train *did* run but with multiple stops omitted.

I hope the hoards of people on their way to Littlehaven appreciated the suffering others had to endure!

 

[Failed Unit]

As it happens, I've spoken to a friend who happened to be at Hitchin at the time in question. As I suspected, people were *left behind* from multiple services at Hitchin as a result of this decision. One such service was the Royston-KX service, so if this was leaving people behind at Hitchin then it will have left people behind at Knebworth and Welwyn North, who of course had already suffered from an unrelated cancellation. The incident also features on the GN twitter feed, which makes for grim reading all-round.

Allegedly the reason given for the cancellation was a "fault with the train which could not be rectified", which is interesting considering the train *did* run but with multiple stops omitted.

I hope the hoards of people on their way to Littlehaven appreciated the suffering others had to endure!

I remember a GTR apologist on here stating
1. Class 700 trains never break down. (Despite the MTIN figures showing them as the least reliable unit in GTR)
2. Great Northern was a simple operation compared to the MML side. (As we frequently watch the service collapse at Finsbury Park because of missing drivers)

I miss having a reliable service. Must keep telling myself it is all network rails fault and I might believe it as it works for GTRs senior management.

 

[sefton]

And it's so difficult to walk across to St Pancras from Kings Cross to pick up a TL service?
That's been done for years so why is it suddenly so difficult to do?

Because GTR's customers have paid for a ticket to take them directly to their destination, not squeeze onto an overcrowded service taking them to the wrong destination, queuing to get out of Kings Cross and then waiting for another train to finally get them to their destination (late).

Meanwhile GTR is playing with its toy train set moving fresh air around.

A freezing platform and delayed 15 minutes, wow that is a hardship!

What a nice attitude.

As to your claim that not stopping at St Neots only saved 2 minutes, I hope you didn't go to the same school as Diane Abbott as it actually saved 20 minutes by running fast between Peterborough and Finsbury Park from a starting delay of 30 minutes that is pretty good going as more then half of the delay was caught up with.

I am not sure what school you went to either, but I went somewhere that actually taught me to read as you seem to have overlooked this that preceded the section you quoted -

And here is another example of GTR annoying their customers by playing at train sets -http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64332/2018/10/29

This was the 17:56 Horsham to Peterborough service that arrived late into London, but then picked up 25 minutes of delays up to Sandy. However rather than stop at St Neots, which would have taken two minutes, it skipped that stop.

So GTR's customers (not passengers, people have paid for this service) were delayed even further for GTR to achieve nothing.

 

[JonathanH]

Still no better at weekends. I've a feeling that GTR will never restore the 4 fast trains an hour on the Bedford line.

You could be right given that it links into what is probably the last service (ie Gatwick slow) they will look to restore on the south side of London.

 

[bramling]

I remember a GTR apologist on here stating
1. Class 700 trains never break down. (Despite the MTIN figures showing them as the least reliable unit in GTR)
2. Great Northern was a simple operation compared to the MML side. (As we frequently watch the service collapse at Finsbury Park because of missing drivers)

I miss having a reliable service. Must keep telling myself it is all network rails fault and I might believe it as it works for GTRs senior management.

I remember the "GN is simple" comment. The fact that this came from someone allegedly connected with the programme was utterly incredulous, and also in itself rather telling.

The twitter feed certainly makes for depressing reading, and perhaps a few on here could benefit from spending some time browsing it, to see what real experiences GN users are having, and to see how real GN users rate the current service.

There's a massive problem with late running and recovery. The GN network isn't simple, even if it may look simple on a map. The late running off the Thameslink network is already causing chaos day-in-day-out, and this is with less than 40% of the proposed through service running. Clearly there's an even bigger issue with recovering from disruption - it's proving impossible to recover the service without taking drastic measures. The measures used on the Midland side, also notoriously unpopular there, are simply unacceptable on the GN side -- due to the half-hourly frequency of all the services, as it causes unacceptable intervals and, at times, overcrowding.

 

[sefton]

The hilarious name for the 700s that many posters around here use because they have yet to accept they're here to stay.

This despite the fact the train satisfaction score for Thameslink jumped 13% when they were introduced. Those of us who spent a few years ramming ourselves on to a short formed, stiflingly hot, narrow aisled 319 every morning for years before 2018 may have a slightly different view than your average rail nostalgist.

And those of us who used decent 365s where you could actually sit on the seats in some comfort, rather than choosing to either sit awkwardly in the window seat because the trunking is in the way or in the aisle seat where you will either need to press yourself against the stranger next to you or only sit on half the seat.

They are utterly unsuited to the hour long intercity journeys they are being used for.

And unfortunately you are correct, these badly designed trains will be in service causing misery for many years.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There's a massive problem with late running and recovery. The GN network isn't simple, even if it may look simple on a map. The late running off the Thameslink network is already causing chaos day-in-day-out, and this is with less than 40% of the proposed through service running. Clearly there's an even bigger issue with recovering from disruption - it's proving impossible to recover the service without taking drastic measures. The measures used on the Midland side, also notoriously unpopular there, are simply unacceptable on the GN side -- due to the half-hourly frequency of all the services, as it causes unacceptable intervals and, at times, overcrowding.

{my bold}

Perhaps that might be the reason for the failure of the new Thameslink. On the traditional MML side what made Thameslink a success was the metro style of operation: Bedford-St Albans- fast to London- Gatwick- Brighton every 15 mins and Luton- all stns- London- Wimbledon/ Sutton every 15 mins. Where this new timetable really collapsed was in trying to offer an anywhere to anywhere network... what should have happened was the new services should've been overlaid on top of the traditional services... and certainly it would be better if on the GN side the service pattern could also be settled on a 15 min frequency

 

[bramling]

{my bold}

Perhaps that might be the reason for the failure of the new Thameslink. On the traditional MML side what made Thameslink a success was the metro style of operation: Bedford-St Albans- fast to London- Gatwick- Brighton every 15 mins and Luton- all stns- London- Wimbledon/ Sutton every 15 mins. Where this new timetable really collapsed was in trying to offer an anywhere to anywhere network... what should have happened was the new services should've been overlaid on top of the traditional services... and certainly it would be better if on the GN side the service pattern could also be settled on a 15 min frequency

Absolutely.

The problem is that there isn't the demand for off-peak 4tph services to both Cambridge and Peterborough, and even if it could be justified it would only make performance *even* worse due to placing more strain on places like Finsbury Park, Welwyn and Hitchin.

The second Cambridge/Brighton will help a bit for those served by it, but unfortunately the flip side will be yet more performance issues imported from elsewhere. The real killer will be when the slower 4tph start running through the core, at that point I suspect the network will degenerate into even more farce than it already is.

There's been various thoughts in this thread and others on alternative permutations which offer the same or similar capacity benefits whilst offering a more reliable service. In the longer term there should also have been some thought given to provision of 12-car trains on the peak Baldock/KX services, platform lengthening is only required at five platforms, and units are readily available.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Absolutely.

The problem is that there isn't the demand for off-peak 4tph services to both Cambridge and Peterborough, and even if it could be justified it would only make performance *even* worse due to placing more strain on places like Finsbury Park, Welwyn and Hitchin.

The second Cambridge/Brighton will help a bit for those served by it, but unfortunately the flip side will be yet more performance issues imported from elsewhere. The real killer will be when the slower 4tph start running through the core, at that point I suspect the network will degenerate into even more farce than it already is.

There's been various thoughts in this thread and others on alternative permutations which offer the same or similar capacity benefits whilst offering a more reliable service. In the longer term there should also have been some thought given to provision of 12-car trains on the peak Baldock/KX services, platform lengthening is only required at five platforms, and units are readily available.

I think another major issue is the lack of thought given to the enforced delay whilst traction systems are changed over... when St Pancras was moved/ rebuilt it should've been made 4 platforms and the 3rd rail extended to St Pancras

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I have to say , from a long term user of Midland Thameslink (and indeed an employee directly and indirectly) , the present Sunday offering of 2 Bedford fast and 2 St Albans (slows) is extremely poor.

Not just the loss of fast links SAC to London , but the lack of connectivity all day to Luton and the airport - a 30 min service ! - even BR in the teeth of yet more cost cutting in the bad days of the early 90's resisted that cut* - and the issues of protecting the Monday to Friday core service should be sorted by now , with "the largest driver recruitment ever" - or whatever they sold it as.

(it was suggested - and resisted - that 1 tph all stations Bedford to London was adequate on Sundays..)

Mind you - last Winter , a 1 tph Moorgate to Hertford was pretty desperate IMHO.

 

[Aictos]

I remember a GTR apologist on here stating
1. Class 700 trains never break down. (Despite the MTIN figures showing them as the least reliable unit in GTR)
2. Great Northern was a simple operation compared to the MML side. (As we frequently watch the service collapse at Finsbury Park because of missing drivers)

I miss having a reliable service. Must keep telling myself it is all network rails fault and I might believe it as it works for GTRs senior management.

To be fair for someone from the TL would say the GN was simple, equally someone from the GN would say the TL is simple.

Each route has different challenges and you cannot apply a one glove fits all approach to the routes which is where GTR is going wrong.

The issue is GTR has tried to change too much at once rather then gradually introduce the changes for example the first set of services that went though the Core ought to have been the Peak only Welwyn services as 1. They don't require as many drivers as Peterborough/Cambridge, 2. If there is a issue then you have the Inners to move people so shouldn't affect the network as badly and 3. Use Finsbury Park as the changeover point.

As to the Peterborough and Cambridge TL services until they can operate reliably they ought to have kept the preview service as it was Pre May and instead kept the old timetable in place until Dec until enough drivers have been trained on the traction and routes then in the run up to Dec start extending the services though the TL Core gradually.

They are utterly unsuited to the hour long intercity journeys they are being used for.

Umm, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Kings Cross to St Neots on GN isn't what I would class as a InterCity service, it's a Outer Suburban service nothing more nothing less.

A InterCity service is what LNER, Grand Central or Hull Trains operate on the ECML.

 

[Steve Harris]

Umm, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Kings Cross to St Neots on GN isn't what I would class as a InterCity service, it's a Outer Suburban service nothing more nothing less.

A InterCity service is what LNER, Grand Central or Hull Trains operate on the ECML.

So, what is London Kings Cross to Kings Lynn. An Intercity or Outer Suburban service ? (In your view).

 

[sefton]

Umm, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Kings Cross to St Neots on GN isn't what I would class as a InterCity service, it's a Outer Suburban service nothing more nothing less.

Do they not run between London, Brighton, Cambridge and Peterborough? All cities. What was that about schooling again...

 

[Failed Unit]

The issue is GTR has tried to change too much at once rather then gradually introduce the changes for example the first set of services that went though the Core ought to have been the Peak only Welwyn services as 1. They don't require as many drivers as Peterborough/Cambridge, 2. If there is a issue then you have the Inners to move people so shouldn't affect the network as badly and 3. Use Finsbury Park as the changeover point.
.

I assume you mean don’t use Finsbury Park as a changeover point? My experience is it is one of the biggest points of delay. Typical day. Horsham - Peterborough service arrives on platform 6 with no driver to take it forward. Kings Cross - Cambridge gets stuck behind as it is past the points to move onto another platform. Cambridge service eventually gets in and runs Fast to Stevenage. People for Welwyn North and Knebworth have to get a taxi from WGC.

Finsbury Park change overs must be on of the biggest sources of delay.

 

[387star]

Frequent last minute platform changes at finsbury doesn't help

And the (lift?) construction in the subway continues...

 

[bramling]

I assume you mean don’t use Finsbury Park as a changeover point? My experience is it is one of the biggest points of delay. Typical day. Horsham - Peterborough service arrives on platform 6 with no driver to take it forward. Kings Cross - Cambridge gets stuck behind as it is past the points to move onto another platform. Cambridge service eventually gets in and runs Fast to Stevenage. People for Welwyn North and Knebworth have to get a taxi from WGC.

Finsbury Park change overs must be on of the biggest sources of delay.

Again, it’s incredible that crew changes at Finsbury were ever considered a viable way of doing things. But, hey, Great Northern is “simple”!

Tonight’s service remains “interesting”. Loads of late running plus cancellations, and as usual leaving some extended intervals to certain destinations. Not sure if this is still the result of earlier’s problems, or just the usual ThamesLink/ shower.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think another major issue is the lack of thought given to the enforced delay whilst traction systems are changed over... when St Pancras was moved/ rebuilt it should've been made 4 platforms and the 3rd rail extended to St Pancras

Not possible to build a 4 platform St Pancras, as has been explained previously.

Also the traction changeover happens much more quickly than the station and does not delay services (unless it fails, which I’d relatively rare now). This was not the case with the 377s on either count.

 

[bramling]

Not possible to build a 4 platform St Pancras, as has been explained previously.

Also the traction changeover happens much more quickly than the station and does not delay services (unless it fails, which I’d relatively rare now). This was not the case with the 377s on either count.

I wish they had just built a new multi-platform 12-car-ready terminal on the railway lands on the down side alongside King’s Cross, and a new bit of railway to Belle Isle complete with flying junctions and the like.

... and I’m actually half serious! Anything has to be better than the current mess - as I sit on my on-time 365 hearing people moaning that the last *three* Thameslink services in a row are cancelled... Still, we might just arrive home right-time with no late Thameslink services to get in the way!

 

[The Box Photter]

I'd have to say that the 700s do change over quicker than the 377s and 387s did. It was always a nervous wait on a northbound 387 at City wondering if things would start up again. The elephant in the room is still the fact that trying to squeeze Cambridge & Peterborough trains through the Core adds unnecessary complication and potential sources of delay. The 0729 ex-Flitwick is held every morning at Dock Junction whilst we presumably await a late running GN train through the Canal Tunnel. Before the timetable change, the equivalent service (the 0726) was rarely held on the run into St Pancras.

Blackfriars is now a much more crowded and congested station too as a result of Cambridge & Peterborough passengers realising that's where they need to be in order to get a seat home in the evenings. I'd be interested to see stats on the flow of passengers heading south though the Core in order to intercept their train at Blackfriars or City just to have a fighting chance of getting a seat. It must have been quite a shock to the system to find the train home was almost full before they got on at St Pancras.

GN needs to be split off to be a self-contained network, for the sake of both GN and existing TL passengers.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'd have to say that the 700s do change over quicker than the 377s and 387s did.

I'm not a 377/387 Driver but a 700 changes slower than a 319. It's quick and almost doesn't affect dispatch. It generally changes over in the time it takes for everyone to board and alight. However, when it goes wrong....

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd have to say that the 700s do change over quicker than the 377s and 387s did. It was always a nervous wait on a northbound 387 at City wondering if things would start up again. The elephant in the room is still the fact that trying to squeeze Cambridge & Peterborough trains through the Core adds unnecessary complication and potential sources of delay. The 0729 ex-Flitwick is held every morning at Dock Junction whilst we presumably await a late running GN train through the Canal Tunnel. Before the timetable change, the equivalent service (the 0726) was rarely held on the run into St Pancras.

Every train into the core now has a couple of minutes pathing time immediately before the core to improve RT presentation. What that means is that a train running RT already will wait just outside St P (southbound) or Blackfriars (northbound) for its correct slot.

The train in front of the 0729 ex Flitwick (9T13, a regular of mine) is a Luton starter. The train in front of that is a Peterborough - Horsham.

 

[Aictos]

So, what is London Kings Cross to Kings Lynn. An Intercity or Outer Suburban service ? (In your view).

It used to be a InterCity service back when you had Class 47s and Mk3s etc however when Class 317s and Class 365s got introduced it got downgraded to a Outer Suburban service.

Do they not run between London, Brighton, Cambridge and Peterborough? All cities. What was that about schooling again...

Just because they run between various cities doesn't make them InterCity for example you had the Class 166s/165s run Reading to London both cities in their own right as stopping services that didn't make them InterCity, it did however made them Outer Suburban services simply because of the type of traction used.

I assume you mean don’t use Finsbury Park as a changeover point? My experience is it is one of the biggest points of delay. Typical day. Horsham - Peterborough service arrives on platform 6 with no driver to take it forward. Kings Cross - Cambridge gets stuck behind as it is past the points to move onto another platform. Cambridge service eventually gets in and runs Fast to Stevenage. People for Welwyn North and Knebworth have to get a taxi from WGC.

Finsbury Park change overs must be on of the biggest sources of delay.

It's only a issue there because GTR can't get their drivers where they are meant to be and also poor signalling by the signallers responsible for that area due to poor communication from GTR as let use your example above, that Cambridge service shouldn't be routed behind the delayed Peterborough service if GTR have actually done their job and advise the signaller that it's delayed at Finsbury Park which ought to mean that the signaller is now aware that they have to replatform trains which shouldn't result in passengers for Welwyn North and Knebworth having to get a taxi from WGC or Stevenage.

Equally if GTR know that there is no driver to take it onto Peterborough then they ought to have terminated it at Blackfriars using the bay platforms and use it to reform it's next working from there which I know isn't perfect but is that not what the bays are for?

The crux of the issue is not the fact that Finsbury Park shouldn't be used as a changeover point but rather GTR and NR ought to sort out their communications better, of course before the GN SDC moved to Three Bridges this was unheard of as they were in the same room as the signallers now they've all moved to Three Bridges this is why it's now a issue.

 

[Agent_Squash]

It used to be a InterCity service back when you had Class 47s and Mk3s etc however when Class 317s and Class 365s got introduced it got downgraded to a Outer Suburban service.





Just because they run between various cities doesn't make them InterCity for example you had the Class 166s/165s run Reading to London both cities in their own right as stopping services that didn't make them InterCity, it did however made them Outer Suburban services simply because of the type of traction used.



It's only a issue there because GTR can't get their drivers where they are meant to be and also poor signalling by the signallers responsible for that area due to poor communication from GTR as let use your example above, that Cambridge service shouldn't be routed behind the delayed Peterborough service if GTR have actually done their job and advise the signaller that it's delayed at Finsbury Park which ought to mean that the signaller is now aware that they have to replatform trains which shouldn't result in passengers for Welwyn North and Knebworth having to get a taxi from WGC or Stevenage.

Equally if GTR know that there is no driver to take it onto Peterborough then they ought to have terminated it at Blackfriars using the bay platforms and use it to reform it's next working from there which I know isn't perfect but is that not what the bays are for?

The crux of the issue is not the fact that Finsbury Park shouldn't be used as a changeover point but rather GTR and NR ought to sort out their communications better, of course before the GN SDC moved to Three Bridges this was unheard of as they were in the same room as the signallers now they've all moved to Three Bridges this is why it's now a issue.

Blackfriars bays can only be reached via Elephant, not from the Up Snow Hill from LBG. Makes it impossible to terminate early at Blackfriars without considerable disruption.

 

[bramling]

Blackfriars bays can only be reached via Elephant, not from the Up Snow Hill from LBG. Makes it impossible to terminate early at Blackfriars without considerable disruption.

No thought whatsoever seems to have been given to how the service might recover in the likely event of disruption.

On the Midland side the only viable turnaround point is via Cricklewood sidings, as all the other reversing points are booked to be utilised intensively pretty much right through the day. The GN side is nearly as bad, with the only decent turnaround point being Letchworth, or perhaps via the old down Cambridge line at Hitchin. Anywhere else means reversing via a running line.

Meanwhile it’s becoming very clear that the layover time at the end of each trip is proving insufficient to absorb delays, even small ones. Again, doesn’t seem to have been much thought given to this - lengthy turnarounds would certainly help at Horsham, Cambridge and Peterborough, and the layouts should have been designed to provide for this. Likewise Bedford - a layout designed to cater for traffic and service levels of the 1980s, and barely enhanced since.

Many of us said it wasn’t going to work well, and it isn’t - for depressingly predictable reasons. Thameslink Programme just barged in like a bull in a china shop, and here we are now with a shambolic service. Fat lot of good having all the extra capacity when much of the time it’s running up and down carrying fresh air due to stops being withdrawn.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Not possible to build a 4 platform St Pancras, as has been explained previously.

Also the traction changeover happens much more quickly than the station and does not delay services (unless it fails, which I’d relatively rare now). This was not the case with the 377s on either count.

oh I remember from when I used the line {admittedly yrs ago} there was about a 5 minute pause at Farringdon.

as to the possibility of 4 platforms at St P... sorry didn't know the topic had been covered before.

 

[bramling]

oh I remember from when I used the line {admittedly yrs ago} there was about a 5 minute pause at Farringdon.

as to the possibility of 4 platforms at St P... sorry didn't know the topic had been covered before.

Whilst four platforms at St Pancras would have been a nice-to-have, the core is actually quite low down the list of Thameslink’s problems - it’s the rest of the network that’s causing most of the issues. Whether the core handles 24tph remains to be seen.

Having said that, St Pancras could definitely have been better designed with regard to passenger flows. The escalator provision within the low-level station is woeful. This will definitely run into problems if the 24tph service materialises, and some expensive rebuilding will likely be required in the future.