Reigate Expansion/Extension of Platforms. Still Going Ahead?

[WizCastro197]

It was a few years ago that I had heard of the Reigate expansion plan and extension of platforms to allow longer Southern Services (as the 4 can become quite crowded toward East Croydon) and possibly a Thameslink service to replace the former. Either a Brand new Platform (3) or the extension of Platform 2 I think? But I haven't heard from it since and I am unsure if it will still be going ahead? It definitely sounds like it needs to basing of the endless complaining of Reigate Residents who weep that the services are too short and inadequate for a town of its size.

2 Questions:

Is it going to come to fruition? Or not? Perhaps lack of funding compiles into it?

If the plan is built, and the Thameslink service is timetabled, Will Reigate and Redhill lose their Southern Service to Victoria??

 

[JonathanH]

Is it going to come to fruition? Or not? Perhaps lack of funding compiles into it?

Not funded.

If the plan is built, and the Thameslink service is timetabled, Will Reigate and Redhill lose their Southern Service to Victoria??

Yes, a switch of the Bedford service to Reigate and Victoria service to Gatwick or Three Bridges was expected.

It definitely sounds like it needs to basing of the endless complaining of Reigate Residents who weep that the services are too short and inadequate for a town of its size.

It saved a class 700 unit, gave Reigate a service to London Bridge instead of Victoria, and removed the need to split trains at Redhill.

 

[WizCastro197]

That’s a real shame
It’s really needed

Not funded.

How come? Conservatives?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2022 ==

Not funded.


Yes, a switch of the Bedford service to Reigate and Victoria service to Gatwick or Three Bridges was expected.


It saved a class 700 unit, gave Reigate a service to London Bridge instead of Victoria, and removed the need to split trains at Redhill.

Last part is confusing
Saved a 700?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2022 ==

Not funded.


Yes, a switch of the Bedford service to Reigate and Victoria service to Gatwick or Three Bridges was expected.


It saved a class 700 unit, gave Reigate a service to London Bridge instead of Victoria, and removed the need to split trains at Redhill.

Removed the need to split trains I think was one of the main reasons for the expansion

 

[JonathanH]

That’s a real shame
It’s really needed

How come? Conservatives?

Whether it is 'really needed' is a matter of opinion, but it does solve the issue of running four car trains from Redhill to Victoria in the off-peak.

It isn't funded because the project hasn't had approval in the light of changed funding priorities for the railway in the light of post-Covid demand. It wasn't funded before March 2020.

Last part is confusing
Saved a 700?

The running time for a Bedford to Gatwick Airport service south of Redhill is 54 minutes - 14 minutes to Gatwick, 26 minutes at Gatwick, 14 minutes to Redhill.

The running time for a train from Redhill to Reigate is four minutes, so a train only going to Reigate can pick up the northbound service half an hour earlier than running to Gatwick.

One less train is therefore needed in the cycle.

 

[Minstral25]

It was a few years ago that I had heard of the Reigate expansion plan and extension of platforms to allow longer Southern Services (as the 4 can become quite crowded toward East Croydon) and possibly a Thameslink service to replace the former. Either a Brand new Platform (3) or the extension of Platform 2 I think? But I haven't heard from it since and I am unsure if it will still be going ahead? It definitely sounds like it needs to basing of the endless complaining of Reigate Residents who weep that the services are too short and inadequate for a town of its size.

Network Rails last plan was a platform 3, it cost £37m (2018 prices) and has not been funded by DfT

Please point out where the endless complaining is. I haven't heard any and live in Reigate. Most from my understanding seem to think the current 2 tph is excellent - when it runs!!

 

[WizCastro197]

Network Rails last plan was a platform 3, it cost £37m (2018 prices) and has not been funded by DfT

Please point out where the endless complaining is. I haven't heard any and live in Reigate. Most from my understanding seem to think the current 2 tph is excellent - when it runs!!

Hi Yes

Hi
I also live on the border between Redhill and Reigate and those who know absolutely nothing about the railway say
That the service is inadequate and the trains are too short.

Ah well it’s just stupid Conservatives who at the moment seem to have only the motive to make things harder rather than easier

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2022 ==

Network Rails last plan was a platform 3, it cost £37m (2018 prices) and has not been funded by DfT

Please point out where the endless complaining is. I haven't heard any and live in Reigate. Most from my understanding seem to think the current 2 tph is excellent - when it runs!!

Hi
I also live on the border between Redhill and Reigate and those who know absolutely nothing about the railway say
That the service is inadequate and the trains are too short.

Ah well it’s just stupid Conservatives who at the moment seem to have only the motive to make things harder rather than easier

Yes But presumably you and I talk to different people?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2022 ==

Network Rails last plan was a platform 3, it cost £37m (2018 prices) and has not been funded by DfT

Please point out where the endless complaining is. I haven't heard any and live in Reigate. Most from my understanding seem to think the current 2 tph is excellent - when it runs!!

Yes You say when it runs which in itself explains the unreliability and lack of services?

 

[Western Sunset]

£37m for a platform? No wonder it wasn't funded.

 

[JonathanH]

£37m for a platform? No wonder it wasn't funded.

It was a bit more than just a platform. A completely different access arrangement, pointwork and car park was part of the plan (and expense).

Ah well it’s just stupid Conservatives who at the moment seem to have only the motive to make things harder rather than easier

Whilst they are admittedly struggling to come up with ideas to fix various problems, the lack of funding for stuff like a platform at Reigate is not party political.

I also live on the border between Redhill and Reigate and those who know absolutely nothing about the railway say
That the service is inadequate and the trains are too short.

I guess there remain grumblings about the lack of services from Reigate to London Bridge. There are also people who drive (or walk) from Reigate to Redhill for better connections.

 

[zwk500]

£37m for a platform? No wonder it wasn't funded.

Would have also included the associated signalling work and possessions to do it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

£37m for a platform? No wonder it wasn't funded.

It was 80m for P0 at Redhill so a bargain

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2022 ==

I guess there remain grumblings about the lack of services from Reigate to London Bridge. There are also people who drive (or walk) from Reigate to Redhill for better connections.

Of course the P0 platform was poorly thought out as 1 should have been retained as through line and then cross platform connections could have been maintained. Now you end half way up P0 or right at the end if its a joiner with a heft walk to get over to P2 really ought to be a bridge at the London end.

 

[Western Sunset]

So probably well over £40M now. Do contractors see Network Rail coming?

That's a lot of doggie treats...

 

[Rescars]

There is a Homebase adjacent to Reigate station if anyone prefers going for a DIY option.....!

Seriously, increased frequency of London trains would be most welcome, but if there is an ambition to improve the service, then the other infrastructure (such as car parking) needs to be enhanced to cope with the increase in demand. So not a cheap project.

As an aside, presumably changes of this sort would lead to the demise of Reigate signal box.

 

[JonathanH]

As an aside, presumably changes of this sort would lead to the demise of Reigate signal box.

Transfer of signalling to Three Bridges ROC could potentially happen regardless of any other work at Reigate.

Seriously, increased frequency of London trains would be most welcome,

There was no intention, as far as I can tell, of an increased frequency of London trains from Reigate, just a simple swap of Bedford and Victoria services.

if there is an ambition to improve the service, then the other infrastructure (such as car parking) needs to be enhanced to cope with the increase in demand. So not a cheap project.

There was a loss of existing car parking spaces as a result of the platform work, which resulted in the need to create new ones.

 

[Rescars]

Transfer of signalling to Three Bridges ROC could potentially happen regardless of any other work at Reigate.

Reigate box is very well placed to monitor the level crossing. Is Reigate unique in being a terminal point for third rail services, where instead of buffers, there is a level crossing carrying an A road and the unelectrified line going on further (to Guildford) instead? I have never seen the barriers down when an electric service is terminating, only for through services. Fortunately I have never seen a train overshoot the platform either.

 

[zwk500]

Reigate box is very well placed to monitor the level crossing. Is Reigate unique in being a terminal point for third rail services, where instead of buffers, there is a level crossing carrying an A road and the unelectrified line going on further (to Guildford) instead? I have never seen the barriers down when an electric service is terminating, only for through services. Fortunately I have never seen a train overshoot the platform either.

Reigate is possibly unique with the level crossing, but there is at least one other instance of 3rd rail trains terminating on an non-electrified through line: Ore.

Transfer of signalling to Three Bridges ROC could potentially happen regardless of any other work at Reigate.

Transfer to the ROC will happen at some point anyway, although this project is potentially small enough it could be fitted into the box at Reigate, which makes it cheaper for the platform project and smoother for the resignalling as they can 'just' recontrol the whole thing in one go.

 

[Minstral25]

Hi
I also live on the border between Redhill and Reigate and those who know absolutely nothing about the railway say
That the service is inadequate and the trains are too short.

Ah well it’s just stupid Conservatives who at the moment seem to have only the motive to make things harder rather than easier

Yes But presumably you and I talk to different people?

It was a bit more than just a platform. A completely different access arrangement, pointwork and car park was part of the plan (and expense).


Whilst they are admittedly struggling to come up with ideas to fix various problems, the lack of funding for stuff like a platform at Reigate is not party political.


I guess there remain grumblings about the lack of services from Reigate to London Bridge. There are also people who drive (or walk) from Reigate to Redhill for better connections.

I follow local Rail User Group and Reigate Society (Rail Group) which have a wide local reach and Jonathan is right there is some grumbling about lack of London Bridge service but I haven't seen anything number of services or too short trains for a while now.

P3 is an overengineered solution completely rebuilding the car park as well as the station plus extra power supplies at Redhill for longer trains. Hopefully they can come back with a simpler solution probably based around a longer through platform with works to be combined with transferring to Three Bridges ROC at same time

So probably well over £40M now. Do contractors see Network Rail coming?

That's a lot of doggie treats...

Great pooch and pic!

Seriously, increased frequency of London trains would be most welcome, but if there is an ambition to improve the service, then the other infrastructure (such as car parking) needs to be enhanced to cope with the increase in demand. So not a cheap project.

It is unlikely Reigate would have enough passengers for more than half hourly direct and don't forget there are two GWR services an hour to Redhill to change for London Thameslink trains too.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There is a Homebase adjacent to Reigate station if anyone prefers going for a DIY option.....!

Seriously, increased frequency of London trains would be most welcome, but if there is an ambition to improve the service, then the other infrastructure (such as car parking) needs to be enhanced to cope with the increase in demand. So not a cheap project.

Reigate station car park is empty and it was pre covid. Those with money in Reigate area and there are plenty more than happy to pay 9.60 to park at Redhill as it gives them access to far more services.

As an aside, presumably changes of this sort would lead to the demise of Reigate signal box.

Crossing would have to be upgraded to CCTV to do that and there are several other level crossings supervised from the box so that won't be a cheap option.

A far simpler option would be to scrap the siding and just extend the down platform back so an 8 car can be accommodated even if the Down to Up crossover needing relocating slightly to East should be doable for under £10m.

 

[zwk500]

A far simpler option would be to scrap the siding and just extend the down platform back so an 8 car can be accommodated even if the Down to Up crossover needing relocating slightly to East should be doable for under £10m.

extending the down platform to the east would also cut off the sidings access. If those sidings aren't needed then it's possible (assuming overlaps would still be clear for the crossover) but terminating trains on the through line becomes a much more painful thing to timetable, especially trying to line it up with the slot at Redhill.

 

[JonathanH]

Reigate station car park is empty and it was pre covid.

One of the objectors to the platform was the Reigate Society who were concerned about people parking on the streets near the station, although my guess is that concern is now less of an issue with both less outward and inward commuting to Reigate.

A far simpler option would be to scrap the siding and just extend the down platform back so an 8 car can be accommodated even if the Down to Up crossover needing relocating slightly to East should be doable for under £10m.

£10m to get 8 car trains and a less flexible layout is even worse value than £37m for the original scheme.

The reason the original scheme had merit was because the bay platform took on the role the siding played in giving somewhere to park up rolling stock out of the way and gave a more flexible layout for timetabling. Just extending platform 2 doesn't give the timetable benefits and 8-car doesn't allow any sensible Thameslink service to run to Reigate, because 8-cars via East Croydon have been shown not to work well.

 

[Deepgreen]

Reigate box is very well placed to monitor the level crossing. Is Reigate unique in being a terminal point for third rail services, where instead of buffers, there is a level crossing carrying an A road and the unelectrified line going on further (to Guildford) instead? I have never seen the barriers down when an electric service is terminating, only for through services. Fortunately I have never seen a train overshoot the platform either.

This is a point I have raised a few times. The road crossing at Reigate is extremely busy and therefore it would be prudent if the barriers are closed for trains as little as possible. Now, when through trains are approaching, the barriers are frequently lowered before a westbound train even comes into view, which then slows, stops at the platform before crossing the road. This is done with a clear starter signal. Why, I have asked before, can the crossing not be kept open until the train is at the platform, thus saving around two minutes of unnecessary traffic queues? The obvious response is that it guards against over-shoots, but the crossing is not closed for the terminating trains, which approach the platform on a red aspect. The opportunity for over-shooting is the same in both cases. Given that the 'box is exactly where the best possible local operating decisions can be taken, this seems ridiculous. I have seen emergency services vehicles on several occasions stuck at the crossing while a train slowly approaches, stops and leaves, when it would have been entirely feasible to have closed to have closed the crossing much later and for them to have passed across safely minutes earlier than they did. All this BTW is in the absence of a train coming the other way, which would explain the barriers lowering when they do. All this is especially galling as the crossing is cited as a problem for traffic congestion if 3 through tph is considered.

Regarding the third platform I imagine it will be a very long time before anything happens, if ever. Changing work patterns and the recession will have seen off any such works, and even long-planned initiatives such as the 769s and 3tph cannot seemingly progress. Sadly, I think general rail expansion has stalled for a long time, and the reverse is most likely.

 

[WizCastro197]

Regarding the third platform I imagine it will be a very long time before anything happens, if ever. Changing work patterns and the recession will have seen off any such works, and even long-planned initiatives such as the 769s and 3tph cannot seemingly progress. Sadly, I think general rail expansion has stalled for a long time, and the reverse is most likely.

Yes, Weren't those 769s meant to enter service last year? I recently travelled on a 165 and the state of them makes you realise how much these new train are needed.
(I believe that there is another thread on this subject so I won't go too in depth on the 165s)

 

[MarkyT]

Reigate station car park is empty and it was pre covid. Those with money in Reigate area and there are plenty more than happy to pay 9.60 to park at Redhill as it gives them access to far more services.

Crossing would have to be upgraded to CCTV to do that and there are several other level crossings supervised from the box so that won't be a cheap option.

A far simpler option would be to scrap the siding and just extend the down platform back so an 8 car can be accommodated even if the Down to Up crossover needing relocating slightly to East should be doable for under £10m.

Moving the crossover and the signal at the Redhill end of the platform should be possible while retaining the existing locking, although moving other signals further east might also be neccessary. The track replacement element could be particularly economic if track renewal money could be accessed to fund that element. Note the siding currently has nearly 300m standage, so if its turnout was also moved east as part of the work, a useful shorter facility might still be retained. The current protecting signal for the crossing at the Reading end of the platform is the absolute minimum 25m from the crossing today. As Deepgreen mentions, when a Reading train enters the platform, barriers are often lowered on run-in, which extends road closure time significantly. In lengthening the platform, it would be sensible to look at also relocating that signal further from the crossing (to approx. 50m from the road edge) to reduce overrun risk and reconsidering box instructions to allow routine run-in while the crossing is still open to road traffic.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

£10m to get 8 car trains and a less flexible layout is even worse value than £37m for the original scheme.

Well its my guestimate as by keeping the track layout it avoids any resignalling

The reason the original scheme had merit was because the bay platform took on the role the siding played in giving somewhere to park up rolling stock out of the way and gave a more flexible layout for timetabling. Just extending platform 2 doesn't give the timetable benefits and 8-car doesn't allow any sensible Thameslink service to run to Reigate, because 8-cars via East Croydon have been shown not to work well.

The industry spent best part 20 years preparing for Thameslink and Reigate was never a terminating point during that time so i do wonder who was driving this ie DfT, Thameslink or NR as usual thinking it new what the industry wanted.

Being able to run 8 cars to Reigate solves the overcrowding issues in the medium term. By the way plenty of the 9Rxx circuits are booked 8 car 700's and quite frankly they run around with plenty of fresh air most of the day albeit I accept i keep my travelling out of the rush hour these days.

Of course an even cheaper fix would be to diagram a 5 car 377 to the Reigates.

This is a point I have raised a few times. The road crossing at Reigate is extremely busy and therefore it would be prudent if the barriers are closed for trains as little as possible. Now, when through trains are approaching, the barriers are frequently lowered before a westbound train even comes into view, which then slows, stops at the platform before crossing the road. This is done with a clear starter signal. Why, I have asked before, can the crossing not be kept open until the train is at the platform, thus saving around two minutes of unnecessary traffic queues? The obvious response is that it guards against over-shoots, but the crossing is not closed for the terminating trains, which approach the platform on a red aspect. The opportunity for over-shooting is the same in both cases. Given that the 'box is exactly where the best possible local operating decisions can be taken, this seems ridiculous. I have seen emergency services vehicles on several occasions stuck at the crossing while a train slowly approaches, stops and leaves, when it would have been entirely feasible to have closed to have closed the crossing much later and for them to have passed across safely minutes earlier than they did. All this BTW is in the absence of a train coming the other way, which would explain the barriers lowering when they do. All this is especially galling as the crossing is cited as a problem for traffic congestion if 3 through tph is considered.

In my experience its variable so probably depends on signaller but also GWR trains are timed within a couple of mins of each other during a fair part of the day so once the barriers are down there is not much of a window to have them up again before they need lowering.

 

[JonathanH]

As Deepgreen mentions, when a Reading train enters the platform, barriers are often lowered on run-in, which extends road closure time significantly. In lengthening the platform, it would be sensible to look at also relocating that signal further from the crossing (to approx. 50m from the road edge) to reduce overrun risk and reconsidering box instructions to allow routine run-in while the crossing is still open to road traffic.

I think it is clear that that would have happened under the proposals as platform 3 would have basically reached the Redhill end of the current platform 2 with both being 12 coach platforms from that point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Moving the crossover and the signal at the Redhill end of the platform should be possible while retaining the existing locking, although moving other signals further east might also be neccessary. The track replacement element could be particularly economic if track renewal money could be accessed to fund that element. Note the siding currently has nearly 300m standage, so if its turnout was also moved east as part of the work, a useful shorter facility might still be retained. The current protecting signal for the crossing at the Reading end of the platform is the absolute minimum 25m from the crossing today. As Deepgreen mentions, when a Reading train enters the platform, barriers are often lowered on run-in, which extends road closure time significantly. In lengthening the platform, it would be sensible to look at also relocating that signal further from the crossing (to approx. 50m from the road edge) to reduce overrun risk and reconsidering box instructions to allow routine run-in while the crossing is still open to road traffic.

RG23 is 300m ahead of the crossover currently so shouldn't need relocating.

 

[JonathanH]

Being able to run 8 cars to Reigate solves the overcrowding issues in the medium term. By the way plenty of the 9Rxx circuits are booked 8 car 700's and quite frankly they run around with plenty of fresh air most of the day albeit I accept i keep my travelling out of the rush hour these days.

Yes, 9Rxx definitely common as 8-car on Saturdays because of the Bedford issue. Not so many during the week as it is difficult to hide them in the peaks. Thameslink trains, especially the 9Rxx do run around with plenty of fresh air off-peak on the Redhill line. A 12-car train every hour would be more than sufficient for the off-peak passenger loads but people want something more frequent.

The problem with 8-car units through East Croydon on Thameslink services is that people want to board the first train at London Bridge and won't wait for a 12-car shortly behind.

Of course an even cheaper fix would be to diagram a 5 car 377 to the Reigates.

Unfortunately, Network Rail only regard there to be 85m of usable length on platform 2.

 

[Minstral25]

One of the objectors to the platform was the Reigate Society who were concerned about people parking on the streets near the station, although my guess is that concern is now less of an issue with both less outward and inward commuting to Reigate.


£10m to get 8 car trains and a less flexible layout is even worse value than £37m for the original scheme.

The reason the original scheme had merit was because the bay platform took on the role the siding played in giving somewhere to park up rolling stock out of the way and gave a more flexible layout for timetabling. Just extending platform 2 doesn't give the timetable benefits and 8-car doesn't allow any sensible Thameslink service to run to Reigate, because 8-cars via East Croydon have been shown not to work well.

Yes it did mean rolling stock cleared the lines and was why it was useful as a pre-condition for CARS but getting a longer train from Reigate to London without splitting/joining also has a lot of merit

Moving the crossover and the signal at the Redhill end of the platform should be possible while retaining the existing locking, although moving other signals further east might also be neccessary. The track replacement element could be particularly economic if track renewal money could be accessed to fund that element. Note the siding currently has nearly 300m standage, so if its turnout was also moved east as part of the work, a useful shorter facility might still be retained. The current protecting signal for the crossing at the Reading end of the platform is the absolute minimum 25m from the crossing today. As Deepgreen mentions, when a Reading train enters the platform, barriers are often lowered on run-in, which extends road closure time significantly. In lengthening the platform, it would be sensible to look at also relocating that signal further from the crossing (to approx. 50m from the road edge) to reduce overrun risk and reconsidering box instructions to allow routine run-in while the crossing is still open to road traffic.

Last time I was at the station (early July) I checked the siding and it was shiny so it must have a use occasionally (perhaps to step out a Victoria train to let a North Downs train past). I think that a shorter siding would lose that use.

The signals would definitely need to move further East as the crossing is currently right at the end of the platform which is what causes the 4 car restriction

Well its my guestimate as by keeping the track layout it avoids any resignalling

The industry spent best part 20 years preparing for Thameslink and Reigate was never a terminating point during that time so i do wonder who was driving this ie DfT, Thameslink or NR as usual thinking it new what the industry wanted.

Being able to run 8 cars to Reigate solves the overcrowding issues in the medium term. By the way plenty of the 9Rxx circuits are booked 8 car 700's and quite frankly they run around with plenty of fresh air most of the day albeit I accept i keep my travelling out of the rush hour these days.

Of course an even cheaper fix would be to diagram a 5 car 377 to the Reigates.

In my experience its variable so probably depends on signaller but also GWR trains are timed within a couple of mins of each other during a fair part of the day so once the barriers are down there is not much of a window to have them up again before they need lowering.

From what I understand it came obvious in planning the 2018 timetable that it would be very useful to turn a Thameslink round at Reigate, but did not become obvious in time for it to become part of the program.

I think creating a 8 car turn round at Reigate would be a useful intervention but keep 1R Southern train rather than divert 9R Bedford's as currently planned. Then they can run as 8 car between East Croydon and Victoria all day and stop the overcrowding from Coulsdon South inwards. Probably with an extra 4-car added in the peak as they do now from Gatwick to make a 8/12 car service up.

5-car will not fit in Reigate platform and if they did they would find it difficult to match the peak time services

 

[MarkyT]

Unfortunately, Network Rail only regard there to be 85m of usable length on platform 2.

Probably because they're allowing for default 20m stand-back from signals at both ends, which is good practice for sighting.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Unfortunately, Network Rail only regard there to be 85m of usable length on platform 2.

Not sure how they come up with that figure but i suppose now drivers aren't suppose to stop at the signal but stand back 20m from RG21 then i guess that wouldn't leave a 100m and be able sight RG11.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2022 ==

Yes it did mean rolling stock cleared the lines and was why it was useful as a pre-condition for CARS but getting a longer train from Reigate to London without splitting/joining also has a lot of merit

Going to Gatwick gives them access to three sidings and if there full back to Bridges depot. CARS was a mad hatters scheme from an NR that had lost touch with reality fortunately now being restored under Haines leadership.

Last time I was at the station (early July) I checked the siding and it was shiny so it must have a use occasionally (perhaps to step out a Victoria train to let a North Downs train past). I think that a shorter siding would lose that use.

They used to put 8 cars in there so just need to clear all the vegetation over it!

The signals would definitely need to move further East as the crossing is currently right at the end of the platform which is what causes the 4 car restriction

which signals? Presumably you mean RG21 as we know as soon as you want to improve what we have today the whole lot has to be bought upto latest standard so that would add an additional 25m to an 8 car platform extension but there is a 100m to play with from RG23.

From what I understand it came obvious in planning the 2018 timetable that it would be very useful to turn a Thameslink round at Reigate, but did not become obvious in time for it to become part of the program.

They spent a fortune developing Thameslink yet so much only became obvious at the last minute or more than likely people who were in the know weren't being listened to.

I think creating a 8 car turn round at Reigate would be a useful intervention but keep 1R Southern train rather than divert 9R Bedford's as currently planned. Then they can run as 8 car between East Croydon and Victoria all day and stop the overcrowding from Coulsdon South inwards. Probably with an extra 4-car added in the peak as they do now from Gatwick to make a 8/12 car service up.

Agreed but im selfish i didn't want to lose Thameslink from Earlswood.

5-car will not fit in Reigate platform and if they did they would find it difficult to match the peak time services

I see that from @JonathanH although i find it staggering how restrictive the railway is on itself.

 

[Minstral25]

Yes, 9Rxx definitely common as 8-car on Saturdays because of the Bedford issue. Not so many during the week as it is difficult to hide them in the peaks. Thameslink trains, especially the 9Rxx do run around with plenty of fresh air off-peak on the Redhill line. A 12-car train every hour would be more than sufficient for the off-peak passenger loads but people want something more frequent.

The problem with 8-car units through East Croydon on Thameslink services is that people want to board the first train at London Bridge and won't wait for a 12-car shortly behind.

I'm not sure your statement is correct on mainly 8-car on Bedford's. Obviously many Saturdays there are Engineering works but for a normal Saturday Bedford to Gatwick trains are mostly formed either from Three Bridges or Bedford Jowett Sidings (which are 12 coach sidings). They also interlink with the Bedford to Brighton services which are normally 12 car as well. Appreciate the odd 8 car slips in but I think when I have used they have been mostly 12 car although in most instances 8 would do,