• 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!

Unlooping the Sutton Loop: Thameslink vs Tramlink

Status
Not open for further replies.

CMS

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2009
Messages
181
TfL are taking plans to boost the Sutton to Wimbledon public transport corridor to consultation stage. There are three proposals for consultation: options 1 and 2 would be either a new tram or dedicated articulated bus route from Sutton Station to St Helier then either Morden Road Tramlink and South Wimbledon LUL (1) or Belgrave Walk Tramlink or Colliers Wood LUL (2), option 3 would see trams on-street to near Sutton Common then take over the NR route to Wimbledon, terminating alongside current trams to/from Croydon.

Option 3 would therefore lead to Sutton Common to Wimbledon Chase inclusive to be downgraded to Tramlink stops and current Thameslink services terminating at Wimbledon or West Sutton, no longer running in a loop.

The project is being branded "Sutton Link", perhaps given TfL budget constraints, this new name could be to boost the profile of a minimal reintroduction of the bendybus, should said option be taken. Alternately, it could act as a slightly ironic reminder that Tramlink beat Thameslink in the battle for a Sutton link, should a tram option get the go ahead.

Given previous reluctance against Sutton Loop services going to the Southern franchise, plus additional pressure to maintain the links from this area to Thameslink destinations... could this bring an end to the St Albans-Sutton route, largely unchanged for almost 24 years?

The consultation is here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/trams/sutton-link/
Full details of option 3 (removal of Thameslink West Sutton-Wimbledon): https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tr...oads/sutton-link-route-option-3-factsheet.pdf
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I have to say that on a quick read, those don't look to me like very sensible proposals.

Option 3, as you say, involves trams taking over the Thameslink rail route between West Sutton and Wimbledon - so that the rail loop will be broken, and the Thameslink service will have to be split into separate Wimbledon-Tooting-London/etc. and Sutton-Mitcham-London/etc. routes. The claimed benefit is that the trams will provide a more frequent service. I'd imagine that, if more frequent services is the aim, then you could achieve that a lot more easily, and with fewer infrastructure works. by just running some additional shuttle trains between Sutton and Wimbledon. In fact doing so, and running those trains as extensions for some of the proposed CR2 trains when CR2 is built would probably benefit people a lot more. An alternative that I'm surprised wasn't considered could be to extend the Northern line to Sutton, sharing the tracks with Thameslink. Since the Northern line sidings already run practically up to the national rail line, I would imagine that wouldn't require an overwhelming amount of infrastructure work.

Option 1 and 2 look a bit more sensible - involving construction of a new tram route from Sutton to either South Wimbledon or Colliers Wood, to connect to the Northern line. The problem however with both of these is that neither South Wimbledon nor Colliers Wood are particularly big destinations in their own right - most people would simply use them to transfer to the Northern Line, feeding more traffic onto an already overcrowded tube line. The option that terminates at South Wimbledon looks particularly silly in this regard because it stops about a mile from Wimbledon without actually reaching Wimbledon - which is a major destination in its own right, as well as an important interchange for rail services to London - and eventually CR2. I assume the reason TfL have done that is because extending that final mile would be pretty expensive - and possibly require tunnelling since there isn't really any space on the roads around there for trams. Nevertheless, that's an oversight/money-saving attempt that'd severely restrict the usefulness of the proposed new line. (There will be interchange with the Croydon Tramlink at either Morden Road or Belgrave Walk, so people could change to get to Wimbledon, but that means two changes to get to Central London on the train, and besides, could Croydon Tramlink cope with the extra numbers?

I wonder if the proposals have been constrained by TfL's current financial difficulties, so what is proposed is really a 'what can we afford' rather than a 'what would actually be really useful'?

If I had to choose one, I'd probably go for the Sutton-South Wimbledon option as a tram line (not a bus), with the proviso that at the Northern end, it's constructed in a way that doesn't rule out extension to Wimbledon (perhaps in a tunnel) if/when additional funding can be found.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Actually, on a closer look, I don't think option 3 quite makes sense. The claim is that the trams would replace the trains between Wimbledon and West Sutton. However, a close look at the map of the route shows the trams not actually going to West Sutton at all. Looks like, heading South, the trams would leave the existing rail line at Collingwood Road [*], and so by-pass West Sutton. You'd end up with trains terminating at West Sutton from the South, without a direct tram connection (presumably there'd be a tram stop some minutes walk away).

[*] Or possibly Bushey Lane - it's a bit hard to tell from the map, but it's certainly one of them.

Somehow, I can't see that being built.
 

TRAX

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2015
Messages
1,648
Location
France
Is it really necessary ? What is the problem with the Thameslink Sutton loop ?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Why split a through service unnecessarily ? Seems to involve people getting on and off trains and trams at more places, which seems a bad idea.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is it really necessary ? What is the problem with the Thameslink Sutton loop ?

The downside of the loop (any such loop) is that there can't be any layover so any delay picked up southbound will still be there until it gets to Luton.

But I'm afraid to say I can't see any point in this project at all. It doesn't seem to do anything Thameslink doesn't do.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
Can Wimbledon Station cope with vastly increased interchanges, all on the existing platform and stairs?

But then how does the Wimbledon end fit in with Crossrail 2, isn’t that being designed on the basis trams will be removed from the station?
 

Stampy

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2014
Messages
377
Location
Peterborough
The downside of the loop (any such loop) is that there can't be any layover so any delay picked up southbound will still be there until it gets to Luton.

But I'm afraid to say I can't see any point in this project at all. It doesn't seem to do anything Thameslink doesn't do.

Last 2 times I’ve done the “Sutton Loop” from Bedford / St Pancras, the train has had a 5-minute ‘layover’ at Sutton - before setting off back towards Luton.

Mind you, that was last year, I think...
 

LeeLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,462
Location
London
What a stupid idea. Just increase the frequency of the loop. I'm not even convinced Sutton even needs the tram. The people of St Helier are never going to want to lose Thameslink for a tram to a place they're already linked to.
 

westcoaster

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2006
Messages
4,223
Location
DTOS A or B
You could count the amount of people who travel between wimbledon and sutton off peak on less than ome hand, i just can not see the demand for it, two off the stations are also in the 10 least used in london.
 

Thebaz

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2016
Messages
360
Location
Purley
You could count the amount of people who travel between wimbledon and sutton off peak on less than ome hand, i just can not see the demand for it, two off the stations are also in the 10 least used in london.

I'd be sure that plenty of people do travel between Sutton and Wimbledon, just not on the train. If you're in the town centre you'd just hop on the 164 because Sutton station is right at the southern end of the high street, up the hill and it's only a 30 minute journey by bus anyway.

I'd agree with the sentiment that basically option 3 is useless. Goodness knows Sutton needs some investment as it's a right hole these days, and if you're going to introduce the tram (which I think is a good idea) then it should go to South Wimbledon rather than the nowheresville of Colliers Wood. Surely one of the selling points is to run it up the current main trunk route and get people from around these areas out of their cars. Why you'd want to take over the (literally) round-the-houses route that already exists and is under-used is beyond me. Maybe the thought was based on Tramlink taking over the similarly under-used West Croydon to Wimbledon line, but the difference is that line ran through a massive retail park which stretches for about half the route, whereas between Sutton and Wimbledon there is nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing except boring suburbia and a few parks. Not even another town centre. No wonder it's poorly used off-peak. Actually if there were a competition for dullest section of railway in the country (hold your horses, I've had an idea for a trivia thread!) I'd definitely nominate it.

I don't think you could increase the frequency of the Sutton loop even if you wanted to. If you could run fast services between Sutton and Wimbledon that might help to increase patronage, but I don't see where the capacity is at either station. Not aided by the fact there is no crossover at the country end of Sutton (actually the only crossover on the entire route until you get to the Wimbledon area is at St Helier) meaning reversal would have to take place at the London throat of the station which is already dealing with 24 trains an hour.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
You could count the amount of people who travel between wimbledon and sutton off peak on less than ome hand, i just can not see the demand for it, two off the stations are also in the 10 least used in london.
The poor Thameslink frequency doesn't help but more fundementally for a through service to central London these trains suck with their roundabout routes to Blackfriars, so although the line runs through a well populated area between Wimbledon and Sutton, people prefer to go to Morden by bus for the Northern Line, or interchange at Wimbledon or Sutton for a better central London hop. Breaking the loop is an attractive idea operationally because with no terminal layover, the current service offers little or no opportunity to make up time anywhere, so a train that exits the Thamelink core late will inevitably re-enter it late.

So I fully support breaking the loop and creating two separate Thameslink branches, one to Wimbledon and one to Sutton or thereabouts, so no station apart from those between Wimbledon and Sutton would lose Thameslink services. For the line in question I suggest a much better substitute is for it to become solely a terminating Sutton branch of Crossrail 2, breaking the main line track connection at Sutton and creating a new terminal alongside the existing station, perhaps on the post office site or in a deep trench to the west under the current ramp up to the junction, but linked to the west end of the existing platforms by subways under Bridge Road. No doubt very expensive, but perhaps part fundable by some over-station development. At the Wimbledon end, a link to CR2 would allow much more frequent trains to run, direct from the Sutton line to Clapham Junction, the West End, Euston/St Pancras and North London, much more quickly to central London than via the Thameslink route. That could be sufficient improvement to persuade significant numbers from the Sutton/North Cheam/St Helier/Morden area to switch to using their local stations, and help relieve the Northern Line as well as providing useful connections between CR2 and longer distance trains at Sutton. This would create a kind of 'Sutton Tube', akin to how the line was first envisaged as part of the District Line, but re-imagined even better and faster via Crossrail 2.

Here's a map I created while ago:
http://www.townend.me/files/londonsouthwest.pdf
Twickenham on CR2 has been dropped officially since, and the Tooting wiggle may be via elsewhere now. I stand by the idea of removing the Surbiton, Hampton Court branch from CR2 as well, to segregate operations as much as possible from Waterloo suburban, and to that aim I'm also minded to suggest removal of Epsom and Chessington South services, concentrating the new line on the task of serving Sutton and the Kingston, Hampton branch. Sutton Thameslink terminators no longer turning right onto the loop might instead proceed to a new centre turnback (with layover) at Cheam.
 
Last edited:

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,155
Location
West of Andover
Splitting the services up so the trams take over Wimbledon towards Sutton, with the Thameslink services cut back to 4tph operate to/from Wimbledon with the stops on the services which would have gone via Mitcham changing over to Southern services, or with Thameslink services to say Epsom
 

MontyP

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2015
Messages
335
I have to say that on a quick read, those don't look to me like very sensible proposals.

Option 3, as you say, involves trams taking over the Thameslink rail route between West Sutton and Wimbledon - so that the rail loop will be broken, and the Thameslink service will have to be split into separate Wimbledon-Tooting-London/etc. and Sutton-Mitcham-London/etc. routes. The claimed benefit is that the trams will provide a more frequent service. I'd imagine that, if more frequent services is the aim, then you could achieve that a lot more easily, and with fewer infrastructure works. by just running some additional shuttle trains between Sutton and Wimbledon. In fact doing so, and running those trains as extensions for some of the proposed CR2 trains when CR2 is built would probably benefit people a lot more. An alternative that I'm surprised wasn't considered could be to extend the Northern line to Sutton, sharing the tracks with Thameslink. Since the Northern line sidings already run practically up to the national rail line, I would imagine that wouldn't require an overwhelming amount of infrastructure work.

Option 1 and 2 look a bit more sensible - involving construction of a new tram route from Sutton to either South Wimbledon or Colliers Wood, to connect to the Northern line. The problem however with both of these is that neither South Wimbledon nor Colliers Wood are particularly big destinations in their own right - most people would simply use them to transfer to the Northern Line, feeding more traffic onto an already overcrowded tube line. The option that terminates at South Wimbledon looks particularly silly in this regard because it stops about a mile from Wimbledon without actually reaching Wimbledon - which is a major destination in its own right, as well as an important interchange for rail services to London - and eventually CR2. I assume the reason TfL have done that is because extending that final mile would be pretty expensive - and possibly require tunnelling since there isn't really any space on the roads around there for trams. Nevertheless, that's an oversight/money-saving attempt that'd severely restrict the usefulness of the proposed new line. (There will be interchange with the Croydon Tramlink at either Morden Road or Belgrave Walk, so people could change to get to Wimbledon, but that means two changes to get to Central London on the train, and besides, could Croydon Tramlink cope with the extra numbers?

I wonder if the proposals have been constrained by TfL's current financial difficulties, so what is proposed is really a 'what can we afford' rather than a 'what would actually be really useful'?

If I had to choose one, I'd probably go for the Sutton-South Wimbledon option as a tram line (not a bus), with the proviso that at the Northern end, it's constructed in a way that doesn't rule out extension to Wimbledon (perhaps in a tunnel) if/when additional funding can be found.


I don’t there is even the remotest possiblilty of Northern Line extension to Sutton, it is full to capacity already.
 
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
309
The key word here is "consultation". Nice work if you can get it. We are masters at producing glossy reports, artists impressions and so on with no prospect of any shovels in the ground. Highways England are the greatest at this but TfL have seen an opportunity here.
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
I honestly reckon considering bus rapid transit will be the option taken given the status of their finances. It makes sense given the short and localised nature of the route and allows for easier extensions and variations of the route when need be. The EL1, EL2 and EL3 or 507/521 bus routes give a good indication of what the scheme will result in. The fact that the tram isn't going to properly connect with the rest of the London Trams network just makes its potential wasted as well. Option 3 definitely couldn't go ahead.
 

Eddd

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2018
Messages
54
the tram isn't going to properly connect with the rest of the London Trams network
The consultation talks of 'potential to connect directly'. I think Sutton-Wimbledon and Croydon-South Wimbledon tram services would be popular. But a Morden Road interchange is a problem - it looks to me like you could have an interchange station or through running between lines, but not both without a significant land take. Without an interchange, through running is a problem due to long service intervals. That alone could be the main reason for proposing option 2, where the land take is mostly 'just' business units.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top