Should TfL take over and rename Thameslink?

[Rail.Fan]

Moderator note: Split from

Crossrail - Construction updates and progress towards opening (now expected 24 May 2022)

More funding, a further 825m https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/12/01/crossrail-gets-extra-825m-to-complete-construction/ "Mark Wild, Chief Executive, Crossrail Ltd, said: “Delivery of the Elizabeth line is now in its complex final stages. Good progress continues to be made with...

www.railforums.co.uk

They should just rename Thameslink Thames Line and be done with it, add it as part of the X Rail mode. Obviously TFL would have to take over.

 

[DC1989]

Tfl should not be operating a service that has 2 tph in some parts.

 

[AM9]

Tfl should not be operating a service that has 2 tph in some parts.

TfL should be operating services that meet the needs of the passengers that use it rather than dogmatically adhere to some pseudo standard maintained in areas where a higher frequency is needed.

 

[JonathanH]

Tfl should not be operating a service that has 2 tph in some parts.

What do you base that on? Romford to Upminster is 2tph.

2tph Crossrail to Reading enables 12 tph at stations east of Hayes & Harlington.

 

[ijmad]

Tfl should not be operating a service that has 2 tph in some parts.

Amersham, Chesham, Enfield Town, Southbury, Turkey Street, Theobalds Grove, Cheshunt, and Emerson Park are on the tube map and get 2tph for some or all of the day, and Roding Valley, Chigwell and Grange Hill only get 3tph.

 

[urbophile]

Thameslink should now be removed from the map to keep it looking as simple as possible. Right now it’s almost overwhelming, especially for tourists.

If Crossrail is on the map, so should Thameslink be. It’s only a historical accident that it’s not run by TfL; it serves the same function analogous to RER in Paris. More importantly, it is a crucial link and if it were not on the map the Northern line in particular might be even more crowded.

 

[PeterC]

Tfl should not be operating a service that has 2 tph in some parts.

The Metropolitan Line?

 

[Acton1991]

In theory I think this is a good idea, but would TfL want to operate services as far out as Brighton? (granted Reading is a fair distance from London too, so maybe!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see no need to rename it, the name is well known. Who operates it is something that really wouldn't bother me either way.

 

[stuu]

No, but it should be seen as a similar mode to Crossrail and kept on the map between West Hampstead/Finsbury Park and London Bridge/E&C

 

[Andrew S]

I don't think there is any need to rename it, or give it to Tfl to operate.

 

[davetheguard]

The Thameslink name is fine, absolutely no need to drop such a well-known brand name.

If you want to rename something "Thames Line", I'd say that geographically Crossrail/Elizabeth Line would be a better candidate as the Thames flows west to east, not north to south like Thameslink.

On second thoughts, thanks to BJ, Crossrail already has too many names!

 

[stuu]

The Thameslink name is fine, absolutely no need to drop such a well-known brand name.

If you want to rename something "Thames Line", I'd say that geographically Crossrail/Elizabeth Line would be a better candidate as the Thames flows west to east, not north to south like Thameslink.

On second thoughts, thanks to BJ, Crossrail already has too many names!

Indeed. Thameslink would be a fairly sensible name for a London-based regional network

 

[uglymonkey]

Hmmm...TfL all the way out to Cambridge????

 

[Wolfie]

Moderator note: Split from

Crossrail - Construction updates and progress towards opening (now expected 24 May 2022)

More funding, a further 825m https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/12/01/crossrail-gets-extra-825m-to-complete-construction/ "Mark Wild, Chief Executive, Crossrail Ltd, said: “Delivery of the Elizabeth line is now in its complex final stages. Good progress continues to be made with...

www.railforums.co.uk

They should just rename Thameslink Thames Line and be done with it, add it as part of the X Rail mode. Obviously TFL would have to take over.

Why?

 

[SynthD]

No, it goes too far. It should be on the map, but as many of you have said it makes the map busy. I understand why it wasn't until now.

 

[A0wen]

Hmmm...TfL all the way out to Cambridge????

And Brighton, Gatwick Airport and Peterborough.....


The answer is no - TFL's broke and it needs to stop its incessant empire building.

 

[TrenHotel]

Assume this means the metro bits rather than all the way to Brighton, Bedford or Cambridge. At the present time, it would be preferable if Shapps and the TOC upped their game - and charged the same fares as TfL as well.- rather than lumbering TfL with lines it can't cope with at present.

 

[davetheguard]

And Brighton, Gatwick Airport and Peterborough.....


The answer is no - TFL's broke and it needs to stop its incessant empire building.

Personally, I've been very happy with TfL's "empire building" as you put it.

Routes like the North London Line that have been neglected for years by the DfT's penny-pinching franchise model (and in B.R. days before that too) have prospered greatly by being transferred to TfL control.

Properly funded, with all day staffing, refurbished stations, new & much more frequent trains. Result - vast increases in passenger numbers and revenue several times over.

Having said that, as we all know, TfL's funding is now in crisis caused by Covid, so now is certainly not the time to transfer any further routes to their control; they haven't got the funds to finance any more of the Overground magic. And I certainly agree that Brighton & Peterborough are geographically too far out for TfL to be in control. Gatwick? Maybe, but not at the moment.

 

[Recessio]

I'd give them the Sutton Loop, curtailed at Blackfriars. For the more regional services, I'm not sure that either operating out that far nor cutting down the lengths of the routes to more acceptable termini is politically acceptable (let alone a good idea)

From the rest of TSGN, the Northern City line to TfL would make sense too. Bearing in mind it still uses LUL safety rules in the tunnels, just chuck some S stock on it and boom, new underground line...

 

[PTR 444]

Thameslink currently has trains running between a range of far-flung destinations, such as Horsham to Peterborough and Luton to Rainham (Kent), but apart from the local services does anyone actually make any end to end journeys on them?

If not, then I’d argue that Thameslink should be revised to only serve the core and areas within Greater London. For example, it could still be 24tph through the core, but would only run as far as London Bridge, Orpington and Sutton loop in the south, and Welwyn GC and St Albans in the north. Any existing Thameslink services from further afield would be split and diverted into their respective London termini. After that then I would say that there is a much greater case for TfL to take over.

 

[Basil Jet]

I'd give them the Sutton Loop, curtailed at Blackfriars. For the more regional services, I'm not sure that either operating out that far nor cutting down the lengths of the routes to more acceptable termini is politically acceptable (let alone a good idea)

From the rest of TSGN, the Northern City line to TfL would make sense too. Bearing in mind it still uses LUL safety rules in the tunnels, just chuck some S stock on it and boom, new underground line...

The fourth rail on the Northern City has been disconnected for 50 years, and lies there as junk.

 

[JonathanH]

Thameslink currently has trains running between a range of far-flung destinations, such as Horsham to Peterborough and Luton to Rainham (Kent), but apart from the local services does anyone actually make any end to end journeys on them?

Why does whether anyone makes end to end journeys have any relevance?

There are enough people travelling from Redhill to St Pancras or St Albans to East Croydon (or indeed Cambridge to Gatwick Airport) to justify through running. The point is that the destinations involve lots of overlapping journeys.

 

[Basil Jet]

Thameslink currently has trains running between a range of far-flung destinations, such as Horsham to Peterborough and Luton to Rainham (Kent), but apart from the local services does anyone actually make any end to end journeys on them?

If not, then I’d argue that Thameslink should be revised to only serve the core and areas within Greater London. For example, it could still be 24tph through the core, but would only run as far as London Bridge, Orpington and Sutton loop in the south, and Welwyn GC and St Albans in the north. Any existing Thameslink services from further afield would be split and diverted into their respective London termini. After that then I would say that there is a much greater case for TfL to take over.

That sounds like you'd have nothing but 8-carriage trains calling at the expensively-built 12-carriage stations from St Pancras to London Bridge. In fact, the Thameslink line to Moorgate was specifically cut off in order to allow Farringdon to become 12-carriage.

Why does whether anyone makes end to end journeys have any relevance?

There are enough people travelling from Redhill to St Pancras or St Albans to East Croydon (or indeed Cambridge to Gatwick Airport) to justify through running. The point is that the destinations involve lots of overlapping journeys.

I agree with your sentiment, but I add the information point that the original proposal documents for the Thameslink Project stated that only 2% of Thameslink journeys (before the project) passed into one side of Zone 1 and out the other.

 

[stuu]

Thameslink currently has trains running between a range of far-flung destinations, such as Horsham to Peterborough and Luton to Rainham (Kent), but apart from the local services does anyone actually make any end to end journeys on them?

If not, then I’d argue that Thameslink should be revised to only serve the core and areas within Greater London. For example, it could still be 24tph through the core, but would only run as far as London Bridge, Orpington and Sutton loop in the south, and Welwyn GC and St Albans in the north. Any existing Thameslink services from further afield would be split and diverted into their respective London termini. After that then I would say that there is a much greater case for TfL to take over.

Could you provide a rough estimate of how much those extra terminal platforms in central London would cost?

 

[Gareth]

Thameslink is a well-known name and was always better than something like First Capital Connect. There really is no point renaming it. It's like when Arriva ran Merseyrail as Arriva Trains Merseyside. Nobody called it that and most weren't even aware of the change, or the change back. It may as well have never happened.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

This is a terrible idea and has no chance of happening anyway. In any shape or form, TfL are not going to take over any services through the Thameslink core.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could you provide a rough estimate of how much those extra terminal platforms in central London would cost?

Yes, that’s a slight problem isn’t it. The whole point of Thameslink was to provide extra capacity without needing extra London terminal platforms.

 

[Mikw]

Leave it as it is, it works well for the most part. Any changes and reforms will cost a lot of money, and would probably end up fracturing it.

 

[DelayRepay]

Apart from the possible transfer of the Sutton Loop, this feels like a solution looking for a problem.