Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

jon0844 said:

Now the trains are slowed down and some of the Moorgate trains skip stops, plus 717s coming with air conditioning and Wi-Fi (apparently Network Rail is also going to add 4G coverage in the Northern City Line tunnels, although that's not confirmed yet for sure) as well as faster acceleration that may speed the services up, it is certainly more tempting to look at these from WGC and south. Then ignore the King's Cross trains altogether.

Click to expand...

I think you’re right that this will happen over time. The flip side of the coin is of course that Welwyn and Hatfield alone could fill many seats on a 717, so it won’t leave many seats free by the time the train reaches somewhere like New Barnet. I was thinking more of Hertford though, which is by far the most consistently overcrowded on GN nowadays.

the Rat said:

Wow, this defence of an obviously poor timetable is quite incredible.

Click to expand...

Err, context is everything as usual. I've not been defending anything, far from it.

Put simply, instead of providing trains for areas of population, the suggestion is to move the areas of population to where the trains are running. 10/10 for blue sky thinking but, unfortunately, the reality is that the sky is a dark grey colour and everyone is about to get royally dumped on!!

Click to expand...

Not really sure what I've said to make you disagree so vehemently. I absolutely agree trains should run where the demand is, but that's the paradox of the Thameslink Programme all along. What is it solving?

It's a great that however many decades since it was first proposed finally an under used cross London tunnel will be used to its capacity, who could disagree with that?

The problem is, and in all that time no-one answered, is where should these trains actually go? It's a farce that "consultation" over that was happening years after it was approved and being constructed and a superfarce that not just stopping patterns but whole routes were changed in the last few months.

The whole debacle is centred around the need to get x tph to the core, from somewhere, anywhere without much consideration of the existing passenger flows, let alone new ones, or where extra capacity is needed.

Littlehampton and East Grinstead are an example of that, they only exist because they had to go somewhere.

If it's about maximising use of capacity, it fails before it starts, with sending 8 car trains through the core (making it impossible to work as a true metro like service - 28tph and needing to know where to stand is nonsense), and 8 cars to Kent through 10 and 12 car platforms.

The routes should have been almost set in stone years ago and ideally all trains should have been 12 car, but definitely no less than 10.

the Rat said:

So there you have it, Medway folk, you may be destitute through losing your job because of this omni-shambles of a timetable, but at least you can beg for the price of a cup of tea in Plumstead or Deptford now!!

Click to expand...

Don't be so disparaging! No one is going to.lose their job in the Medway.

It is too unreasonable for Medway to have fast services, they should provide a frequent service for the inner suburbs who have a large demand, why should Medway passengers get to sail by busy suburban stations?

BRX said:

I've no idea whether there'd be the capacity for the 24 tph through the core to turn around at the busy inner-suburban destinations you describe - do you?

As I understand it, one of the benefits of running the trains further out is that they can be turned around in places that are terminii or which don't have the intensity of service that London stations do. Plus there is some leeway to turn short to get diagrams back on track.

Click to expand...

In the case of some of the southern destinations you’d simply be turning Thameslink trains instead of whatever Southern TOC is there. It might be necessary to do some work to cater for 12 cars however.

On the GN side the Hertford loop could quite happily terminate an intensive service - plenty of capacity to reverse short of Stevenage or in the bay if it ever gets built, although both Gordon Hill and Hertford couldn’t reverse longer trains in their current form - Hertford North would possibly be tricky although there is quite a bit of under-used railway land on the London side of the station. Likewise Welwyn will surely at some stage end up getting remodelled to take 12 cars.

As I said, food for thought rather than a fully thought-through proposal. Perhaps Thameslink is yesterday’s solution to yesterday’s problem.

Selkent Fellow said:

Don't be so disparaging! No one is going to.lose their job in the Medway.

It is too unreasonable for Medway to have fast services, they should provide a frequent service for the inner suburbs who have a large demand, why should Medway passengers get to sail by busy suburban stations?

Click to expand...

Because that is what many trains do throughout the country on a regular basis? Either to provide good journey times to certain places, or to manage demand and loadings. No point in stopping at a station if the train is already full (especially so a few impatient Londoners can try to cram themselves into a space that doesn’t exist just to save themselves 5 minutes).

No one has given a good reason why the Medway service won't work.

Its all "we need a fast link to interchanges" which is utterly laughable and not at all a good reason

Like I said if you think having fast links is "pointless" then how about slowing down your semi-fast sidcup service?

Selkent Fellow said:

No one has given a good reason why the Medway service won't work.

Its all "we need a fast link to interchanges" which is utterly laughable and not at all a good reason

Click to expand...

Take a trip to Higham to experience some of the issues. Alternatively there’s plenty of real-life Thameslink experience described in this thread and others.

Selkent Fellow said:

No one has given a good reason why the Medway service won't work.

Its all "we need a fast link to interchanges" which is utterly laughable and not at all a good reason

Click to expand...

It’s not a question of if this service works or not.The question is what is the point of this service?Medway can get to all these fab new destinations much quicker using hs1.The Charing Cross service is far more useful and as I said previously, if the service needs to stop every station then so be it.This service takes 2 and a half hours from Rainham to Luton.Even if the service does bed in with more trains, it’s not going to be anywhere near as reliable.

bramling said:

or to manage demand and loadings. No point in stopping at a station if the train is already full (especially so a few impatient Londoners can try to cram themselves into a space that doesn’t exist just to save themselves 5 minutes).

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that the loadings on the stoppers are already higher due to local population growth hence managing loadings involves adding calls to the semifasts which is where there is more capacity. But Medway users probably don't use the stopping services at the same times they would know that their "crammed "train is actually less crammed than some others (for another local example look at at the shock /complaints from SE Charing Cross users pre London Bridge rebuild who used to take the trains on the Up loop that didn't stop at LBG the who then ended up on busier trains when they stopped at LBG afterwards). As the dwell times increase due to higher loadings on the stoppers it also means the semifast will get stuck behind them for longer so you might as well add a few stops to the semi-fasts for this reason too.

Indeed.Its a disgrace and should never of happened.

Maybe Poundland should get the GTR franchise. Am sure all fares a pound would go down well.

hwl said:

Part of the problem is that the loadings on the stoppers are already higher due to local population growth hence managing loadings involves adding calls to the semifasts which is where there is more capacity. But Medway users probably don't use the stopping services at the same times they would know that their "crammed "train is actually less crammed than some others (for another local example look at at the shock /complaints from SE Charing Cross users pre London Bridge rebuild who used to take the trains on the Up loop that didn't stop at LBG the who then ended up on busier trains when they stopped at LBG afterwards). As the dwell times increase due to higher loadings on the stoppers it also means the semifast will get stuck behind them for longer so you might as well add a few stops to the semi-fasts for this reason too.

Click to expand...

I agree semi fast trains as great as they were and are need to go for more reliability

Was quite surprised to see trains that were cancelled this morning (well, as of 2200 last night) actually ran this evening. Not sure how many additional cancellations there were that weren't planned, but at least 3 trains ran that shouldn't.

I had to go to Stevenage and the train north was 8 minutes late. The one south was 2 minutes late.

Quite surprised as I'd expected to be moved onto a rail replacement bus due to an originally booked two hour gap in service that didn't happen.

hwl said:

(for another local example look at at the shock /complaints from SE Charing Cross users pre London Bridge rebuild who used to take the trains on the Up loop that didn't stop at LBG the who then ended up on busier trains when they stopped at LBG afterwards)

Click to expand...

That's not true, the platform 6 loop was ordinarily only used in the morning peak and in 21 years of commuting through London Bridge it was never a high speed bypass through, more often than not you'd be caught at a signal and wonder if you'd go first or or the train beside you on platform 6 (and/or 5, which was reversible)

One good thing the Thameslink programme has definitely done is improve that.

Essentially, what's happened over the past two weeks has shown that Thameslink as a concept is a busted flush. The original idea of reopening the Snow Hill Tunnel in the 1980s was to be able to use the same units (and some drivers) to cover services which previously needed more units (and drivers). It was a clever cost-cutting measure that also allowed BR to dispense with Holborn Viaduct Station. It then became a useful way for people north of London to get to Gatwick without the tedious schlepp on the tube and the same for those poor souls from south of the river who could only afford to fly from Luton. The key use of the line (which remains to this day) is as a commuter service from Bedford and towns south thereof into London and from Brighton and towns north thereof into London.

I predicted (and was shouted down many times) that cramming GN services through the core was both unwise and unnecessary. The existing service patterns were adequate, especially with 12 car 365 sets and passengers were quite prepared to start and end their journeys at Kings Cross. Being able to put 18, 20 or 24 TPH through the core is an irrelevance unless the trains go where passengers need them to go either side of the core. Putting GN services through the core uses up scarce pathing resource that should have been reserved for trains to the traditional Thameslink route. If the GN trains do ever run through the core, I'm sorry to tell GN assengers that they'd better get used to waiting at St Pancras in the dungeon for their train home in the evening which has been delayed by badgers on the line at Hassocks or some other 3rd-raily excuse. Similarly, Brighton-bound passengers at London Bridge are now beginning to remember what it was like to be unable to get a seat home in the evening because of all the passengers already on the trains from Blackfriars and further north.

There's no reason why EMT trains couldn't have continued to call at Bedford and Luton during the peak hours, since Thameslink have had to lay on replacement trains anyway running on fast line paths calling at Bedford, Luton & St Albans only. My observations have shown that these trains (in the morning anyway) arean't heaviliy loaded, while those trains calling at Harpenden resemble a game of human Tetris.

Running a stopping service to/from Rainham and Luton calling at all stations is a massive waste of resources. By all means offer an all-stations service, but surely the Luton trains could terminate somewhere like Elephant & Castle or Beckenham Jcn, whilst the Rainham service could terminate in the bay platforms at Blackfriars or go no further than London Bridge. It seems that the new Thameslink timetable, far from offering new and exiting journey opportunties, simply replicates existing service patterns, but in an incredibly inefficient way with longer end to end journey times and excessively complex interworked diagrams. The added bonus being that some people have found that the train they used to catch to get to and from work at an acceptable time doesn't exist anymore (even before the amended amended emergency now-you-see-them now-you-don't timetable). For those who still have a semblance of service, they've found that they either need to catch an earlier train or be late for work every morning because Thameslink have decided to make the new trains leave ten minutes later or ten minutes earlier. At Flitwick we have the lunacy of trains into London at xx.12 and xx.13 past the hour then nothing until xx.29 then two more trains at xx.43 and xx.44, one of which STARTS from Flitwick, then nothing until xx.59.

GTR (or whoever gets the poisoned chalice next) should immediately revert to the pre-May 2018 timetable, EMT should reinstate Bedford and Luton stops and GN should be cast adrift, with the notion of ever running through the core torn up and never spoken of again.

This pretty much sums up this great new service.

http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk...k-hits-a-new-low-with-seven-hour-service-gap/

jon0844 said:

Was quite surprised to see trains that were cancelled this morning (well, as of 2200 last night) actually ran this evening. Not sure how many additional cancellations there were that weren't planned, but at least 3 trains ran that shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Well looking at the trains that didn't run south from St Neots this evening -
16:18 - Ran
16:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
17:18 - Cancelled
17:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
18:18 - Part of soft launch and not due to run until next week
18:48 - Ran to Finsbury Park and then gave up
18:58 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
19:17 - Cancelled
19:48 - Cancelled
20:04 - Ran to Kings Cross
20:18 - Cancelled
20:41 - Ran to Kings Cross
20:48 - Part of soft launch and not due to run until next week
21:18 - Ran
21:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
22:03 - Ran to Kings Cross
22:18 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
22:48 - Ran to Kings Cross
23:18 - Cancelled
23:42 - Cancelled

So out of 18 trains that should have run (leaving out the 2 'soft launch' trains), GTR managed to run 5 trains - 27%.

And out of the 12 Thameslink trains which were scheduled to run they managed to get a mighty two to complete their journey.

That is crap.

Truly shocking

The Box Photter said:

Essentially, what's happened over the past two weeks has shown that Thameslink as a concept is a busted flush. The original idea of reopening the Snow Hill Tunnel in the 1980s was to be able to use the same units (and some drivers) to cover services which previously needed more units (and drivers). It was a clever cost-cutting measure that also allowed BR to dispense with Holborn Viaduct Station. It then became a useful way for people north of London to get to Gatwick without the tedious schlepp on the tube and the same for those poor souls from south of the river who could only afford to fly from Luton. The key use of the line (which remains to this day) is as a commuter service from Bedford and towns south thereof into London and from Brighton and towns north thereof into London.

I predicted (and was shouted down many times) that cramming GN services through the core was both unwise and unnecessary. The existing service patterns were adequate, especially with 12 car 365 sets and passengers were quite prepared to start and end their journeys at Kings Cross. Being able to put 18, 20 or 24 TPH through the core is an irrelevance unless the trains go where passengers need them to go either side of the core. Putting GN services through the core uses up scarce pathing resource that should have been reserved for trains to the traditional Thameslink route. If the GN trains do ever run through the core, I'm sorry to tell GN assengers that they'd better get used to waiting at St Pancras in the dungeon for their train home in the evening which has been delayed by badgers on the line at Hassocks or some other 3rd-raily excuse. Similarly, Brighton-bound passengers at London Bridge are now beginning to remember what it was like to be unable to get a seat home in the evening because of all the passengers already on the trains from Blackfriars and further north.

There's no reason why EMT trains couldn't have continued to call at Bedford and Luton during the peak hours, since Thameslink have had to lay on replacement trains anyway running on fast line paths calling at Bedford, Luton & St Albans only. My observations have shown that these trains (in the morning anyway) arean't heaviliy loaded, while those trains calling at Harpenden resemble a game of human Tetris.

Running a stopping service to/from Rainham and Luton calling at all stations is a massive waste of resources. By all means offer an all-stations service, but surely the Luton trains could terminate somewhere like Elephant & Castle or Beckenham Jcn, whilst the Rainham service could terminate in the bay platforms at Blackfriars or go no further than London Bridge. It seems that the new Thameslink timetable, far from offering new and exiting journey opportunties, simply replicates existing service patterns, but in an incredibly inefficient way with longer end to end journey times and excessively complex interworked diagrams. The added bonus being that some people have found that the train they used to catch to get to and from work at an acceptable time doesn't exist anymore (even before the amended amended emergency now-you-see-them now-you-don't timetable). For those who still have a semblance of service, they've found that they either need to catch an earlier train or be late for work every morning because Thameslink have decided to make the new trains leave ten minutes later or ten minutes earlier. At Flitwick we have the lunacy of trains into London at xx.12 and xx.13 past the hour then nothing until xx.29 then two more trains at xx.43 and xx.44, one of which STARTS from Flitwick, then nothing until xx.59.

GTR (or whoever gets the poisoned chalice next) should immediately revert to the pre-May 2018 timetable, EMT should reinstate Bedford and Luton stops and GN should be cast adrift, with the notion of ever running through the core torn up and never spoken of again.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with your sentiments - to which I would add, for the time being at least, to forget linking London Bridge to Blackfriars unless a way was found for 4 to 8 tph to reliably work that section, and not all those from the SE section either (or any from there, come to that). SE could still have some trains through the core, but via Elephant.

mmh said:

That's not true, the platform 6 loop was ordinarily only used in the morning peak and in 21 years of commuting through London Bridge it was never a high speed bypass through, more often than not you'd be caught at a signal and wonder if you'd go first or or the train beside you on platform 6 (and/or 5, which was reversible)

One good thing the Thameslink programme has definitely done is improve that.

Click to expand...

I was commenting on the loadings of those trains i.e. less "busy" The trains that used the Loop were always quieter than the ones that didn't and stopped at LBG. It didn't say anything about timing advantages because there weren't any in reality but you seem to think I said something about speed when didn't. Agreed the new setup is far better (unless you don't want LBG and want a quieter coach (devils advocate) ). Passenger's perception of crowding is always interesting (they always believe their service is more crowded comparatively)

The Box Photter said:

Essentially, what's happened over the past two weeks has shown that Thameslink as a concept is a busted flush.

Click to expand...

What happens when they get all/enough the drivers trained up and it works?

Detailed post from the Lib Dem candidate for Harpenden and Hitchin saying “A new timetable will be introduced which is a mix of the old timetable and the new”

“LONG POST WITH LOTS OF KEY INFO!

Today I met with the management of Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) who run the trains to and from Harpenden. It was very interesting indeed and answered a lot of questions raised here. I have shared the concerns many of you have expressed in this group and via emails to me. So I thought I would share all the info I got and highlight the things I have pushed for. This is really just a summary.

Cllr Sam Collins
Liberal Democrats Parliamentary Candidate for Hitchin & Harpenden

So trying to be as concise as possible...

WHAT HAS GONE WRONG?

- The introduction of the new timetable has been badly implemented, Network Rail only supplied some key data to GTR 2 – 3 weeks ahead of the timetable introduction, rather than the minimum 12 weeks usually required. This has lead to issues with routing and train pathing (exactly which trains go on which tracks & when)

- There has been a driver shortage, or more specifically a shortage of drivers with the right training. All drivers must be trained on the route and the train itself

- Training drivers on the class 700 has not been a major issue but training drivers on the route has been. The 'Canal Tunnel' – the one which links between Finsbury Park and St. Pancras was not made available in adequate time

- As a result of this GTR has been rushing to train drivers on the route but there simply was not enough time (remember drivers being trained are not driving trains elsewhere)

- To try to remedy the situation there has been a reliance on 'pilot' drivers who are trained driving the core section where before handing over to drivers who still require training for that section. There are not enough of them and this has lead to the infamous 'operational incidents, ' an untrained driver will drive the southbound train to Finsbury Park, but will have to wait for a pilot driver to be available, driving a northbound train through the core to Finsbury park where they essentially swap. The time it can take if things don't all align could cause delays and cancellations.

- Driver trainers, and even Freight train drivers have been drafted in to help.

- The reduction of service at Harpenden is a direct result of the demands placed by DfT (Grayling/Johnson) and the current government. There were warnings that 'intermediate stops' like Harpenden would suffer significantly, and this was accepted but the plan was pushed ahead anyway as a result of the changes to East Midlands services (a government decision), which is why there was not a proper consultation at Harpenden.

HOW LONG WILL THIS SITUATION CONTINUE?

- The management are aware things have not gone well and are very sympathetic, indeed I met with one senior manager who himself commutes from Hertfordshire into London, so he is fully aware of the issues at the moment

- The management paid tribute to the station staff who are doing their best with a very bad situation, please remember the timetable and the current mess is not down to them.

- A timescale to when we can get back to a reliable service should become clear next week, but do not expect the service to improve significantly for some weeks yet (the exact timescale is not yet clear how long we are going to have to suffer this)

****IMPORTANT POINT*****: A new timetable will be introduced which is a mix of the old timetable and the new. This means that there is much a potential to get some key services re-instated – the advice is to lobby DfT (ie Chris Grayling – Con & Jo Johnson – Con) very hard right away. The stronger the lobbying the more likely we are to get beneficial changes seems to be a case of who shouts loudest wins.

- It was pointed out that Oliver Heald (Con - NE Herts) has been very active in lobbying and has got concessions already.

TIMETABLE ISSUES

- CHILDCARE/ADDITIONAL TRAINS: I have highlighted the issue with childcare, and that there are key service requirements both morning and evening that allow parents to drop off and pick up children and work, and that these services make the difference between whether some parents can work or not. I have highlighted those key windows and there was a lot of interest and note taking at this point, so the message may have hit home – fingers crossed but keep the pressure up.

- I have asked for an investigation into whether certain services can make additional stops at Harpenden and it seems that this may be possible but more investigation is needed, but they will definitely look into it.

- OVERCROWDING, I was planning to raise this as an issue on both the trains and the platforms, but due to the ongoing situation it is very hard to determine the difference between overcrowding due to the timetable and overcrowding due to the muddled service at the moment. It is one to monitor for now, but I highlighted the concerns that the new timetable (had it actually worked out) would cause overcrowding.

TICKETS

- I raised the issues with the Carnet tickets, it was agreed that
the ideal thing was for the Carnet package to be rolled into the 'Key' smartcard, avoiding issues with ticket gates and grumblings over filling in the relevant bit of the ticket. However it seems that DfT is not keen to make this change as potentially it could mean passengers would find more efficient (cheaper) ways to complete the journey. DfT does not want to lose any revenue. It could be argued that if people find a more cost effective way of travelling – they may travel more – thus increasing revenue. I pushed for the Carnet ticketing to be resolved as many freelancers and those with irregular working patterns benefit greatly from them (though I agreed that rolling them into the 'Key' smartcard would be the best solution)

DELAY REPAY
- I raised the issue that some people have had delay repay claims rejected because they have put in too many claims. It was agreed this was unacceptable and they will look to rectify the issue which may be down to an automated system.

FIRST CLASS

- On a semi fast or all stations Thameslink service First Class is always declassified. So if you are travelling on a non fast Thameslink train from Harpenden, all first class is declassified. This is not widely advertised.

- Permanently declassifying first class on all services is unrealistic, DfT would be extremely unlikely to approve it. While there is sympathy for the idea on shorter journeys (including Harpenden) it is not really workable as the same trains run to Cambridge, Bedford, Peterborough and Brighton where first class is in demand. It would be too complex to change the signage for each journey.

OTHER STUFF!

CLASS 700 SEATING: Seating layout on 700's was researched extensively for years. 2X2 layout generally more popular with customers than 2 x3 as people did not like sitting in middle seat, and the narrow aisle lead to people clustering in vestibules so the 2x2 layout was chosen.

DELAYS: Generally biggest cause of delays is trespassing (& suicides)

CLARIFICATION – Moorgate is a London Terminal, but not 'London Thameslink'

(signing off again)
Cllr Sam Collins
Liberal Democrats Parliamentary Candidate for Hitchin & Harpenden”

Post 1246 by The Box Photter is probably the is the best summary I've read of the whole situation. I really do wonder how much longer it is going to be permitted to carry on before they go back to the old timetable.

Deep down I know they never will even when it would clearly be a very positive move, pleasing those Bedford commuters who lost EMT services, and everyone else whose train service has been destroyed. I suspect this whole thing will eventually be taken apart and we'll get a mid-way compromise which is a bit crap for everyone; it's just going to take a long time to get there because it appears no one wants to be the one to actually do something.

sefton said:

Well looking at the trains that didn't run south from St Neots this evening -
16:18 - Ran
16:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
17:18 - Cancelled
17:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
18:18 - Part of soft launch and not due to run until next week
18:48 - Ran to Finsbury Park and then gave up
18:58 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
19:17 - Cancelled
19:48 - Cancelled
20:04 - Ran to Kings Cross
20:18 - Cancelled
20:41 - Ran to Kings Cross
20:48 - Part of soft launch and not due to run until next week
21:18 - Ran
21:48 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
22:03 - Ran to Kings Cross
22:18 - Cancelled but removed from the timetable so the failure was hidden
22:48 - Ran to Kings Cross
23:18 - Cancelled
23:42 - Cancelled

So out of 18 trains that should have run (leaving out the 2 'soft launch' trains), GTR managed to run 5 trains - 27%.

And out of the 12 Thameslink trains which were scheduled to run they managed to get a mighty two to complete their journey.

That is crap.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. I'm going to Peterborough tomorrow evening from St Neots. I don't really want to drive in case I feel like a drink, but may have no choice.

I don't mind leaving plenty of time to get there in the evening, but was hoping I'd be able to get home. I saw a helpful member of station staff arranging taxis for people at St Neots last week - had a brief chat and he seemed surprisingly cheerful - do you know if they're doing the same from Peterborough?

Selkent Fellow said:

No one has given a good reason why the Medway service won't work.

Its all "we need a fast link to interchanges" which is utterly laughable and not at all a good reason

Click to expand...

Most of what you've posted is utterly laughable!

I’m not sure that Thameslink is a busted flush: we actually don’t know if the timetable will work because it’s never actually been staffed. In that sense the issue isn’t the timetable, it’s the operation by GTR. We’ll only know if the timetable can’t work when the line is staffed and all the trains are running. If it then fails then the timetable doesn’t work - at the moment it’s the implementation/ operation which has catastrophically failed.

On that front does anyone know whether Thameslink are running more or fewer the trains now than they were 2 weeks ago? It seems to me that even on the Midland the service is worse now than it was then. Great Northern is obviously worse, so not worth even asking.

Cricketer8for9 said:

I’m not sure that Thameslink is a busted flush: we actually don’t know if the timetable will work because it’s never actually been staffed. In that sense the issue isn’t the timetable, it’s the operation by GTR. We’ll only know if the timetable can’t work when the line is staffed and all the trains are running. If it then fails then the timetable doesn’t work - at the moment it’s the implementation/ operation which has catastrophically failed.

On that front does anyone know whether Thameslink are running more or fewer the trains now than they were 2 weeks ago? It seems to me that even on the Midland the service is worse now than it was then. Great Northern is obviously worse, so not worth even asking.

Click to expand...

We can tell if it works. On paper it does work, rather well in fact - on the GN side at least, I can’t speak for elsewhere.

The issue is what happens when delays enter the mix, and it’s easy to go back through history and see how often that happens. We pretty much know what the impact of delays is and will be - depending on what recovery options are used. Then it becomes a case of whether people regard this level/probability of unreliability as being acceptable or not. As has been posted a few times, on a 2tph service with no alternative service reliability has to be good if there aren’t going to be seriously inconvenient gaps at times.

In that sense politically I think it is a busted flush in its current form. There need to be some terminus services in there to provide a reliability bedrock.

Cricketer8for9 said:

On that front does anyone know whether Thameslink are running more or fewer the trains now than they were 2 weeks ago?

Click to expand...

About 300 extra trains daily

George166 said:

Most of what you've posted is utterly laughable!

Click to expand...

He’s just trying to defend the mess he and his employers have made of the new services - that’s the only possible explanation ...