Why? The line through Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Mitcham Junction, Sutton, Cheam, Epsom and Dorking has far too many restrictive factors to be used for any kind of long distance service.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability
- Thread starter Transilien
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The traditional route for Victoria-Bognor/Portsmouth trains was via Sutton and Dorking. They switched to going via Gatwick I think some time in the 1970s. The route via Dorking also got excursion traffic to Bognor Regis in the 1960s.
That is all well and good, but there are good reasons why the trains go via Crawley, Gatwick and Croydon now.
1977 IIRC
Nicholas Lewis
On Moderation
Thameslink when it works well, which to be fair is most of the time, is excellent but when it doesn't the contingency plan leaves a lot to be desired and leaves a lot of disaffected passengers. Tonight there is a points failure at Stoats Nest leaving DF blocked all traffic via Redhills so what do control do suspend all calls after Purley to Horley and withdraw the Southern services. Thing is that does do any good when the line is saturated running non stop doesn't help and on the train i was on stopped in two of the platforms it was told not to call at and of course no door release. What we are lacking is anywhere to turn trains around short of destination on the South side and you have to wonder whether diverting some over to Sutton would give more flexibility although not sure if Epsom Downs platform can hold a 12 car.
What are you wanting to divert to Sutton and Epsom Downs? Just services when they are disrupted?
Nicholas Lewis
On Moderation
Id split off one service group off the Brighton line
Which of Brighton or Redhill would go down to 2tph Thameslink? How would the London Bridge to East Croydon frequency be maintained?
gsc777
Member
Perhaps Guildford is a stretch (though I maintain that it would be a good idea) but Dorking is barely further out London than Stevenage or St Albans, we can push the boundaries.
Perhaps I was too subtle. Check the map to see how you might go Epsom - Dorking - Guildford…
gsc777
Member
I am so dumb, I forgot the New Guildford branch is after Leatherhead, not Dorking . Having realised, perhaps the service could split at Leatherhead?
Thameslink uses fixed formation units, although I did always like the idea that they may take on the 707s to operate in 10-car formation. Perhaps those could split at Leatherhead.
Nicholas Lewis
On Moderation
2 to West Croydon would be attractive to a lot of travellers and maintains capacity London to Croydon. As i say tonight they binned off the 9R's as usual first sign of trouble so thats 2x12 cars/hour lost from Bedford to Three Bridges that doesn't help capacity although 700's do have a remarkable ability to just swallow up platform loads of people.
Did trains still stop at Redhill? What were passengers for Coulsdon South, Merstham, Earlswood and Salfords advised to do?
They would bin London Bridge to Three Bridges services at the first sight of trouble if they were self contained as well
miklcct
On Moderation
They put additional calls on the Peterborough - Horsham trains to serve the intermediate stations.
What is the obvious reason that I'm not thinking of for thameslink to run to orpington via lewisham? Lack of capacity between Denmark Hill and nunhead junction?
Those services would avoid crossing over at lewisham junction and not get in way of the semi-fast SE via catford (except for the bit mentioned above)
Those services would avoid crossing over at lewisham junction and not get in way of the semi-fast SE via catford (except for the bit mentioned above)
Most obviously, it takes about 10min longer via DMK than direct, so most potential customers would do the obvious and change at LBG. Orpington pax would stick with the Catford Loop.
I can't see a need for 6tph BFR-Nunhead or on (London-)Hither G-Orpington anyway.
If TL continue to serve the Dartford route, there is certainly an argument for routing via Lewisham-Woolwich if it is practical.
I caught it - doh. Yes Leatherhead is the split, so TL here would go to either Dorking or Guildford - assuming the Victoria-Box-Hill-Horsham remained as today.
Thanks
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,985
Frankly this is the only way the Thameslink Rainham service should exist, it should never have replaced a stopper via Greenwich service calling at every single station between London and Medway.
It should have directly replaced th old Gillingham semi fasts, with the service pattern remaining semi fast calling at major stations only after Gravesend.
If not, then it should be rerouted to Epsom/Guildford, taking over the Epsom semi fasts, and restore the Gillingham service back to SE to Charing Cross.
Fully agree with all of that. The service through Greenwich should be 6tph (all day / and minimum, I'd prefer more but clockface is a nice start) and all to Cannon St. Keep it simple.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,985
Don’t agree with all Woolwich trains being sent to Cannon Street, the Gillingham train can run via Lewisham to CX as it did before 2018 at 2tph nothing wrong with it, Greenwich can still have 6tph to CST weird that Greenwich a world heritage site no less, has a poor rail service
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,985
Ah gotcha!
Yeah the Greenwich line needs a better 6tph service.
I wouldn’t be so against the Rainham Thameslink if it ran via Blackheath to Woolwich and had a semi fast pattern
I only think it's useful as a SF service if it ran Lewisham-Woolwich-Abbey Wood-Dartford. I think Blackheath and Charlton could go, Rainham is even further than Gillingham! Not that it is really the 'same service' re end to end use from Medway. But it's a good feeder for AW.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,985
You could probably keep Rainham as terminal, frees up Gillingham I guess, as a Charlton resident I think it could lose its stop if the SF were to return a lot of Charlton’s heavy work has largely been taken on by North Greenwich in recent years, I’d probably keep Blackheath though, Blackheath is a good alternative interchange in place of Lewisham, especially if you want the Victoria trains.
Flinn Reed
Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 212
Completely agree with the original post, I have often thought that Thameslink might have worked better as a Crossrail-style service (and ideally also run by TFL). In terms of distance, it would make sense to keep a core route to/from the airports, but not necessarily going much further.
But as some have already pointed out, the main problem is platform capacity at St Pancras (and Kings Cross too to some extent), if you were to look at swapping some of the destinations around. There's not really an easy solution without any major infrastructure changes. There have been engineering works in the Thameslink core in the past, with some trains diverted to the high level platforms, but that doesn't account for the higher frequencies in the peaks.
On the MML, I think a Crossrail version of Thameslink should keep the 4tph all stations to St Albans, plus another 4tph semi-fast to Luton. Then the 2tph to Bedford could logically be run by EMR.
One way I think you could look at freeing up some capacity at the EMR platforms at St Pancras, could be to focus the MML on shorter/medium distance services (similar to Marylebone)? There seems to be some spare capacity into Kings Cross considering the number of open access services - including the planned route to Sheffield. Could consider making the ECML the primary route for London-Sheffield, and maybe also consider services from Kings Cross to Nottingham via Grantham, or Kings Cross to Sheffield but via Nottingham and Chesterfield? Then rework the MML timetable to focus on services to Bedford, Corby, Leicester and Derby - could probably fit this into 6tph if the stopping patterns are amended. For example could the Corby services run with longer formations, then add additional calls at the stations between Luton and Bedford (and maybe 1tph also stopping at St Albans) - then some services via Leicester making a few additional stops like Bedford?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Also consider that if Great Northern services to Welwyn etc were to be diverted through the Thameslink core, Farrington and City Thameslink would still offer good access to the City, plus easy interchange at Farringdon for the tube to Moorgate.
But as some have already pointed out, the main problem is platform capacity at St Pancras (and Kings Cross too to some extent), if you were to look at swapping some of the destinations around. There's not really an easy solution without any major infrastructure changes. There have been engineering works in the Thameslink core in the past, with some trains diverted to the high level platforms, but that doesn't account for the higher frequencies in the peaks.
On the MML, I think a Crossrail version of Thameslink should keep the 4tph all stations to St Albans, plus another 4tph semi-fast to Luton. Then the 2tph to Bedford could logically be run by EMR.
One way I think you could look at freeing up some capacity at the EMR platforms at St Pancras, could be to focus the MML on shorter/medium distance services (similar to Marylebone)? There seems to be some spare capacity into Kings Cross considering the number of open access services - including the planned route to Sheffield. Could consider making the ECML the primary route for London-Sheffield, and maybe also consider services from Kings Cross to Nottingham via Grantham, or Kings Cross to Sheffield but via Nottingham and Chesterfield? Then rework the MML timetable to focus on services to Bedford, Corby, Leicester and Derby - could probably fit this into 6tph if the stopping patterns are amended. For example could the Corby services run with longer formations, then add additional calls at the stations between Luton and Bedford (and maybe 1tph also stopping at St Albans) - then some services via Leicester making a few additional stops like Bedford?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think you could probably just withdraw the Northern City line section with no replacement. It's not particularly well used, the two stations uniquely served by GN (Drayton Park and Essex Road) see very few passengers, and there are good alternatives available. There's the Victoria line from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross, Northern line from Moorgate to Kings Cross (and stations towards Barnet), Overground from Highbury & Islington to Shoreditch, and local buses like the 21.
Also consider that if Great Northern services to Welwyn etc were to be diverted through the Thameslink core, Farrington and City Thameslink would still offer good access to the City, plus easy interchange at Farringdon for the tube to Moorgate.
Last edited:
Sorry yes I didn't mean to end at Dartford, more just as the pattern for that inner bit. As to what goes beyond Dartford, I don't think it matters that much these days - you can swap Gravesend and Rainham. Other thingsa terminate at Gililngham still, but I don't think Rochester any longer. All of those could in theory be toggled a bit.
Journey times (LB-Dartford) are about the same on a faster Sidcup line service as this historical Gillingham pattern, and now there is HS1 for Gravesend and beyond, it's no longer the primary / fast route into London. But more should feed the EL frankly.
This seems excessive to me. This line is an asset and if anything should be better used and publicized. Old St has boomed and Highbury is so much busier - the opportunity is there.
It's another tube line really (obv was the Northern, ish, once) - I would do the opposite and give it full exclusive use of the slow lines to Welwyn and of course to Stevenage the other way - and make it a metro frequency. And simplify the other services - possibly removing calls at e.g. Potters Bar.
- Status