• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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 Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,233
A few points. Firstly the May 20th plan was hardly a good idea when it was clearly impossible to implement. If us mere observers on here could quite clearly see it was too much change AND too much change in a short period of time then so should the DFT and GTR.

As for the 365s, taking this in conjunction with the point about lengthening the reduced length undesiros, why bother spending money lengthening an unpopular design when you could just put the 365s back on lease (which should be dirt cheap as the leasing companies would presumably rather lease them than pay storage costs), allowing GN to get the dependable King’s Cross services people *need*, then cascade a few full length undesiros to crowded inner-suburban metro services or routes which may actually desire them, of which there are plenty. I wouldn’t by any means write the 365s off yet - posting this just moments after driving under a bridge and seeing the pleasant surprise of 2x365s pass overhead, something which we weren’t supposed to be seeing on weekends now!

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the 700s apart from the seats. Replace the seats and they’ll be miles better than the 365s - but you won’t have that as they represent Thameslink.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

OwenB

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
300
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the 700s apart from the seats. Replace the seats and they’ll be miles better than the 365s - but you won’t have that as they represent Thameslink.
Do you think there's any liklihood that they will replace the seats? It seriously might be something they can do to win back some hacked off commuters (that and run some trains).
 

MrCub

Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
260
Location
SE England
Related to this I had cause to use EMT for the first time since the changes today. I can see why people using the intermediate stations south of Leicester are annoyed. Gone is their nice old half-hourly frequency; now the two southbound trains run within 10 minutes of each other, and then nothing for 50 mins; northbound it's an ugly xx20/xx40 split. Blooargh. This new Thameslink timetable has a lot to answer for, even if it was working properly.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,771
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Do you think there's any liklihood that they will replace the seats? It seriously might be something they can do to win back some hacked off commuters (that and run some trains).

I doubt it. The incompetent arrogance of the Thameslink Programme will likely see the existing seats retained, plus someone would have to justify why yet more money has been wasted thanks to a Thameslink Programme error of judgement. Plus it’s not just the seats themselves, they’re too squashed together, legroom is insufficient, the ducting is highly intrusive, the cantilever gets in the way, and at times they rattle and vibrate - as do the tables in first class.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,771
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the 700s apart from the seats. Replace the seats and they’ll be miles better than the 365s - but you won’t have that as they represent Thameslink.

Apart from the noisy walk-through design, harsh lighting, rough ride, significant reduction in seating numbers, and the fact that the RLUs lock in a short 8-car length, yes you’re right.

The issue isn’t so much whether the 700s are suitable for Thameslink (although there are many design flaws - not least the ducting and cantilevers intruding into legroom in half the seats), but whether Thameslink is the best solution for some of the routes it has been imposed upon. Perhaps you could visit some stations in North/east Hertfordshire, east Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and see what users think about that one?

As for representing Thameslink, yes you may be right in that they have required expensive modification having proven unfit for purpose!
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Apart from the noisy walk-through design, harsh lighting, rough ride, significant reduction in seating numbers, and the fact that the RLUs lock in a short 8-car length, yes you’re right.

The issue isn’t so much whether the 700s are suitable for Thameslink (although there are many design flaws - not least the ducting and cantilevers intruding into legroom in half the seats), but whether Thameslink is the best solution for some of the routes it has been imposed upon. Perhaps you could visit some stations in North/east Hertfordshire, east Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and see what users think about that one?

You say the Class 700s are fine apart from the noisy walk-through design, harsh lighting, rough ride, significant reduction in seating numbers, and the fact that the RLUs lock in a short 8-car length?

I see no difference between a Class 700 and a S7/S8 or even a Class 378 as they all have the walk-though design and are no noisy then non walk-though designs, as to harsh lighting that is a matter of opinion as many say the GWR HSTs have harsh lighting but I find it to be fine.

Rough ride is not just a issue related to the train design but the design of the track itself so can't see how you can fault the Class 700s here.

I can agree that there are less seats however the design is meant to shift a lot more people so there was a compromise done.

The RLUs are 8 car long as certain routes can only take a 8 car without major infrastructure works being done and they won't be extended to 12 cars unless someone funds the work.

Lastly, you do realise that the design of the Class 700 is fully down to the DfT and not the train operator for example Siemens was asked in the building stage if seatback tables and wifi was wanted, the DfT said no which is why extra cost is now happening to retrofit these items.

Overall, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the Class as it's just a matter of opinion, just that more 12 cars should have been built.
 

OwenB

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
300
I doubt it. The incompetent arrogance of the Thameslink Programme will likely see the existing seats retained, plus someone would have to justify why yet more money has been wasted thanks to a Thameslink Programme error of judgement. Plus it’s not just the seats themselves, they’re too squashed together, legroom is insufficient, the ducting is highly intrusive, the cantilever gets in the way, and at times they rattle and vibrate - as do the tables in first class.
Ah yes, I'm 5'9" and cannot sit in the window seat, unless on a priority seat. Madness.
 

MML

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2015
Messages
588
Could the Siemens maintenance staff be asked to adjust the internal seating arrangements of the units now they are in-service ?

I don't find the seats themselves too uncomfortable, it's the inadequate legroom and highly intrusive ducting which leads to legs and feet having to be off-set from the seated position. If seats could be adjusted to give 1 extra inch of legroom and be adjusted so they sit 1 inch further away from the window, I feel sure the negative comments would reduce.

It could perhaps be done at the same time as seat-back tables and wifi are installed.
Speaking of which, the wifi seems fairly unreliable. Always slow and dropping out.
And does anybody know when the seat-back tables are being retrofitted ? Those in place now were installed at delivery AFAIK.

And I just hope the DfT order at least 40 extra carriages to lengthen some RLU to FLU before the design is no longer available.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,799
And I just hope the DfT order at least 40 extra carriages to lengthen some RLU to FLU before the design is no longer available.

What is going to be the prompt for the DfT to even remotely consider ordering any extra class 700 coaches? Do you think it is on their agenda? It is rather far fetched to imagine that there is any consideration of additional coaches being ordered.

* The full 24tph timetable is far away in the future.
* The franchise change isn't for a while.
* No assessment can really be made about capacity at the moment with so many trains cancelled.

I think it is a fairly safe bet that the fleet will never be increased.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,191
I'm sure mechanically the 700s are good trains. I don't object to walk through carriages. What I do object to is the internal design which is totally unsuitable to the outer suburban nature of the services they work on. The trains have been designed to move people through the core which is a tiny fraction of the work they do.

The seats are too narrow, and pushed too close to the side wall of the train
Seats in standard class lack sufficient padding
Lack of seat back tables (partly corrected but retro fitting still needed on many trains)
Too much 1st class provision, especially on the 8-car units
Heating duct is too intrusive (which is a problem when the seats are installed right up against the side wall of the train
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,411
Location
Ely
I see no difference between a Class 700 and a S7/S8 or even a Class 378 as they all have the walk-though design and are no noisy then non walk-though designs

Agreed it isn't a problem unique to the 700s, but the walk-through design certainly increases the potential annoyance of noise pollution from other passengers. When there are doors between carriages, the crying baby/rowdy teenagers/drunken singing sports fans/raucous hen parties/etc. will have little negative effect as long as they are in a different carriage from you. With no proper barrier between the carriages, any of these can (and do) annoy everyone else on the entire train.
 

MML

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2015
Messages
588
What is going to be the prompt for the DfT to even remotely consider ordering any extra class 700 coaches? Do you think it is on their agenda? It is rather far fetched to imagine that there is any consideration of additional coaches being ordered.

* The full 24tph timetable is far away in the future.
* The franchise change isn't for a while.
* No assessment can really be made about capacity at the moment with so many trains cancelled.

I think it is a fairly safe bet that the fleet will never be increased.

It was rather a hope than any firm commitment, but:
1. I would hate for the DfT to decide they need lengthening in 5 years time, only for the carriages to no longer be in production.
2. The existing contract with Siemens does have an option for lengthening I believe.
3. Who says the franchise change isn't for a while - at this rate GTR could be stripped of the franchise within the month or alternatively asked to pay some form of compensation for poor service rendered.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,055
Location
UK
The lighting on a 700 is quite a warm white so doesn't seem harsh to me. And as for too much first class, remember the rear is always declassified (maybe both at peak times now, but that's temporary) so there isn't really too much, with the added bonus of anyone being able to use first class at the rear.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
OLR for GTR?

Rail operator Govia Thameslink faces being stripped of its franchises unless performance on its services in the South East of England rapidly improves, the BBC understands.

A source said the government could begin the process within weeks.

Passengers on its Thameslink and Great Northern trains have endured more than a month of disruption following the introduction of new timetables in May.

Meanwhile, commuters are to set receive compensation worth a month's travel.

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) - which also runs Southern and the Gatwick Express services - changed the time of every train on its timetable on 20 May.

Passengers were warned of disruption before the changes were brought in, but the implementation of the new timetable saw some services withdrawn and further cancellations without any warning.

Since then, GTR chief executive Charles Horton has resigned and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has faced calls to stand down - as MPs from across all parties voiced their concern at the disruption caused in their constituencies.

'Last chance saloon'
Passengers have been venting their anger on social media, while last week a memo leaked by the RMT union revealed that extra security staff were at stations to protect staff from "unhappy customers".

But there is also frustration within government that while Northern, which encountered similar problems in the North of England, has introduced an interim timetable, Govia Thameslink's equivalent is still a fortnight away.

"They are now in the last chance saloon," a government source told the BBC.

Mr Grayling had previously announced there would be compensation for commuters and an inquiry into what went wrong, saying there had been "major failures" by the rail industry.

A spokesman for Govia Thameslink refused to comment on the reports about the possible loss of the franchises, instead choosing to re-release a statement in which it said it was "sorry for the disruption".

GTR had added it rescheduled every train in its franchise in an attempt to improve rail efficiency but it was a "hugely complicated task" and involved re-training drivers on new routes
 

lordbusiness

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2014
Messages
187
This is the slowest of slow deaths.

It would certainly be an interesting indicator of whether nationalisation/ Directly Operated Railways would actually improve the railway, rather the the oft quoted East Coast.
 

OwenB

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
300
It would certainly be an interesting indicator of whether nationalisation/ Directly Operated Railways would actually improve the railway, rather the the oft quoted East Coast.
I'd be interested in how another management team would go about fixing the service, given most of the issues are owing to an insufficient number of trained drivers on some routes.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,799
If the service is going to improve anyway it is politically advantageous to remove GTR. If the service is not going to improve it is a big risk (or is it 'we inherited this mess it is going to take a long time to resolve' and it actually buys the DfT / government time).

I can't see anyone coming in with some great ideas to solve the problem and the timetable slots are pretty much fixed so there isn't going to be much change there.

Also, what happens to Southern? Southern Metro services are apparently running well (even if some other parts of the network don't have an ideal service).
 
Last edited:

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,191
I really can't believe the Government will want the GTR franchise to be taken over by an Operator of Last Resort. They can get away with it on the East Coast as it's a relatively small, simple operation, but GTR as well I'm not so sure. It would be also play to the unions and nationalisation agenda which I'd have thought a Tory Government would be keen to avoid at all costs.

Could they appoint another private operator. Would anyone really be willing to take it on?

I suspect what we'll see is plans for the break up of GTR, and maybe ending the contract earlier than planned. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up with:

- Moorgate services to TfL
- Southern Metro to TfL
- Cambridge/Kings Lynn and maybe Peterborough fasts that run from Kings Cross to LNER/New East Coast Partnership

That would leave the remainder to be let as two franchises:

- Southern - services from the southern London Terminals
- Thameslink - the services that run through the core.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,697
I doubt it. The incompetent arrogance of the Thameslink Programme will likely see the existing seats retained, plus someone would have to justify why yet more money has been wasted thanks to a Thameslink Programme error of judgement. Plus it’s not just the seats themselves, they’re too squashed together, legroom is insufficient, the ducting is highly intrusive, the cantilever gets in the way, and at times they rattle and vibrate - as do the tables in first class.

I dont think the seats necessarily need replacing. A series of mods would be sufficient, including moving them 2-3 inches from the side wall, re-cushioning and increasing spacing which may see the loss of 4 seats per coach. Hardly think costs would be extreme for this
 

OwenB

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
300
I dont think the seats necessarily need replacing. A series of mods would be sufficient, including moving them 2-3 inches from the side wall, re-cushioning and increasing spacing which may see the loss of 4 seats per coach. Hardly think costs would be extreme for this
That sounds sensible. No one likes those sets of seats facing each other.
 
Joined
31 Jul 2010
Messages
360
To me this is more a less the end... the way the company have treated staff and passengers alike has ruined all credibility and if everyone knows they will lose the franchise I think people will simply stop trying. Something needs to be done staff morale is at low low levels and passengers are equally unhappy.
 

43055

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,903
Related to this I had cause to use EMT for the first time since the changes today. I can see why people using the intermediate stations south of Leicester are annoyed. Gone is their nice old half-hourly frequency; now the two southbound trains run within 10 minutes of each other, and then nothing for 50 mins; northbound it's an ugly xx20/xx40 split. Blooargh. This new Thameslink timetable has a lot to answer for, even if it was working properly.
Same for East midlands parkway where both trains leave within 3 minutes of each other northbound and 5 to 10 southbound. I think the timetable has been adjusted so there is space for the second Corby service when that starts so it will be a 30 minute frequency again and no real major changes will be needed.
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,017
Same for East midlands parkway where both trains leave within 3 minutes of each other northbound and 5 to 10 southbound. I think the timetable has been adjusted so there is space for the second Corby service when that starts so it will be a 30 minute frequency again and no real major changes will be needed.

To be fair the service at East Mids Parkway has always been like that, so it's a bit unfair blaming that on TL. You could argue an opportunity to try and solve that has been missed though.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,771
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I really can't believe the Government will want the GTR franchise to be taken over by an Operator of Last Resort. They can get away with it on the East Coast as it's a relatively small, simple operation, but GTR as well I'm not so sure. It would be also play to the unions and nationalisation agenda which I'd have thought a Tory Government would be keen to avoid at all costs.

Could they appoint another private operator. Would anyone really be willing to take it on?

I suspect what we'll see is plans for the break up of GTR, and maybe ending the contract earlier than planned. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up with:

- Moorgate services to TfL
- Southern Metro to TfL
- Cambridge/Kings Lynn and maybe Peterborough fasts that run from Kings Cross to LNER/New East Coast Partnership

That would leave the remainder to be let as two franchises:

- Southern - services from the southern London Terminals
- Thameslink - the services that run through the core.

I think this may be a case of having to say something, with the shambles ongoing and seemingly getting worse.

How would a replacement management structure be sourced at short notice, and what would they actually do? Sadly many of the mistakes were made months or years ago, and whilst GTR is definitely one of the worst operators, the finger of blame lies rather closer to DFT in my view.

Until someone at DFT level acknowledges and accepts that the fundamental problem is with the *Thameslink Programme* there is unlikely to be much improvement IMO. If there had been no Thameslink Programme then there would almost certainly have been no TSGN franchise, and by definition no GTR!

I’m note sure I could see any private company wanting to take on the franchise in its current form - it really is now a total poison chalice. At best put it back to Southern/Gatwick Express and Thameslink/Great Northern.

It’s so hard to hold anyone accountable for this mess. The programme predates Grayling for sure, it predates the current government, and it goes back to the Labour years, albeit a Labour almost unrecognisable compared to today. And how does one hold faceless civil servants to account, who are supposed to be politically neutral? Meanwhile both Grayling and GTR (and Horton) have also proven themselves to be at best ineffective.

I suppose a lot will depend what happens from 15th July. One presumes the main difference will be tailored driver rosters and train diagrams. But still a service woefully inferior to pre-20th May even if it runs 100% to plan, which given the mess we’ve seen in the last few weeks I think is a massive if, and not one I’d be willing to bet much on.

It’s clear some very incompetent people have been let loose on this project at various stages, and hopefully at the very least they will never find themselves in such positions again. Reading through some historic posts on this forum by certain people, one individual in particular, is certainly amusing, although not sure whether to laugh or cry at times. This is what happens when some incompetent children try to join some dots on a map with no clue about the realities of what they tried to do.

Unfortunately the most realistic answer to the question of where do we go from here, is that quite simply never in a million years should we have got here in the first place. One hopes some of the “total fleet replacement” type new franchises are keeping any eye on all this too, with perhaps a cautionary feeling about trying to change too much in a short space of time.
 
Last edited:

MrCub

Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
260
Location
SE England
Same for East midlands parkway where both trains leave within 3 minutes of each other northbound and 5 to 10 southbound. I think the timetable has been adjusted so there is space for the second Corby service when that starts so it will be a 30 minute frequency again and no real major changes will be needed.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that, so it sorts of makes sense even if it is a bit premature.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,197
Location
Surrey
2. A significant number of Brighton services are being cancelled. Those services to East Grinstead and Gatwick Airport are running. Even the Peterborough to Horsham services are now making an appearance. It seems to run the new services to East Grinstead and Peterborough, they no longer have enough drivers to operate to Brighton, a route which has operated successfully for years. So much so that indicator boards showing trains for the next hour don't even display when the next Brighton service will operate. I suppose they just expect passengers to change at East Croydon or Gatwick Airport to continue their journey.

I have noticed two issues with the EG and GTW services you mention when coming home from school that have me really cheesed off.

Sometimes part of my journey home involves me changing at Norwood Junction. I'll then usually get a train to East Croydon to catch a connection. The Gatwick Airport trains from Norwood run at 02 and 32 past the hour, except for when I'm there for some reason. I get to Norwood long after the 15:32 has departed, but for some reason there is no 16:02 departure, the next one is at 16:32! This isn't a cancellation, it'a just a service doesn't exist at that time. I then have to get the 16:09 Coulsdon Town service which is of little use to me as it means i just miss my connection at East Croydon and then have a 25 minute wait. Why doesn't this service run? Is it an amendment due to the failure of the new timetable, or has that always been the case since the timetable started?

The second thing is rush hour East Grinstead services from London Bridge. I've been at East Croydon whilst noticing this. Now obviously the usual EG departures are XX10, XX40 from Victoria. Previously in the evening peak this was supplemented by a 1730, a 1758, an 1830 and a 1900 (or somewhere around that time). Since the timetable change these extra services now start earlier, the first one being 1655 and then 1725, then 1755, however there is no 1825, which is more or less at the height of the peak. The next one is 1855. Is this a similar subtle amendment that could have a big effect on someone's commute?

This is all not to mention the 2 hour gap between thameslink trains leaving Brighton halfway through the day.

A further annoyance is at stations on the line between Carshalton and Mitcham Eastfields. There are 4 stopping trains per hour but they are separated by an infuriatingly unfair 4/26/4/26 minute gap. Whilst there has been no real service reduction it does mean that the frequency of stopping trains has effectively been cut to 2tph. However this is just a general fault I see with the timetable itself rather than the effects of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top