Thameslink ideas

Bald Rick · 6 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
That, and also passengers from the Wimbledon won't want to go to Victoria, nor will Chatham Main line passengers want to go to Blackfriars.

Precisely. Anyone from the Wimbledon area wanting Victoria uses the District line (Or SWML and change at Clapham). From the Sutton line, uses direct services. From Streatham, uses Common or
Hill. From Tulsa Hill, uses W Norwood, Streatham Hill, or the Dulwiches.

Chatham Main Line passengers wanting Blackfriars use the trains that already do it, or the services via London Bridge, or change at Bromley.

This proposal to ‘solve’ Herne Hill all seems to force a lot of passengers to go where they don’t want to, to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

RailUK Forums

cle · 6 Aug 2019

Agreed, except the final part. The problem does exist - there are huge conflicts. But I think the status quo is close to optimal, given the constraints we have to infrastructure changes.

I would change it through new service patterns on the Victoria-Kent line (more semi-fasts and locals from Victoria which all stop at Herne Hill - redirect some fast Kent Coast trains to Charing Cross) - meaning less fast traffic through Herne Hill.

And of course, all Wimbledon loopers going into the bays at Blackfriars, with the doubling of frequency.

Higher frequencies on both lines would enable easier same-platform changes at Herne Hill too.

Bald Rick · 6 Aug 2019

cle said:
Agreed, except the final part. The problem does exist - there are huge conflicts. But I think the status quo is close to optimal, given the constraints we have to infrastructure changes.

I would change it through new service patterns on the Victoria-Kent line (more semi-fasts and locals from Victoria which all stop at Herne Hill - redirect some fast Kent Coast trains to Charing Cross) - meaning less fast traffic through Herne Hill.

And of course, all Wimbledon loopers going into the bays at Blackfriars, with the doubling of frequency.

Higher frequencies on both lines would enable easier same-platform changes at Herne Hill too.

We’ll have to disagree on the problem. Yes there are conflicting moves, as there are at any flat junction. However the timetable is designed to accommodate these, and allows for delays. In my days of commuting daily across Herne Hill, I was very rarely delayed by more than a minute, and that was when there were more services across there than now. As we know, there is spare peak capacity across Herne Hill now, which also helps with accommodating delayed services.

I agree that running to the Blackfriars bays and doubling the frequency would be best, but that horse has bolted, for now. I’d have a fiver on it coming back again at some point in the next few years though.

Finally, there isn’t any peak capacity left at Charing X or Cannon St for more services.

dewsnapsliding · 7 Aug 2019

Bald Rick said:
I agree that running to the Blackfriars bays and doubling the frequency would be best, but that horse has bolted, for now. I’d have a fiver on it coming back again at some point in the next few years .

I was going to put this at the end of my post. Sooner or later someone will be looking for maximum outcomes for minimal expense within London boundaries, and this will be near or top of the list as it doesn't require any infrastructure (or minimal) expenditure.

4-SUB 4732 · 7 Aug 2019

Bald Rick said:
Precisely. Anyone from the Wimbledon area wanting Victoria uses the District line (Or SWML and change at Clapham). From the Sutton line, uses direct services. From Streatham, uses Common or
Hill. From Tulsa Hill, uses W Norwood, Streatham Hill, or the Dulwiches.

Chatham Main Line passengers wanting Blackfriars use the trains that already do it, or the services via London Bridge, or change at Bromley.

This proposal to ‘solve’ Herne Hill all seems to force a lot of passengers to go where they don’t want to, to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

Now, this is an interesting point.

If you live in, say, Wimbledon, you will have a situation whereby you can take a 31 minute journey to Blackfriars which only operates every 30 minutes; or you can take a 38 minute journey on the District line which I believe operates on that particular stretch something akin to every 7.5 minutes in peak or about every 10 minutes off peak.

Now, consider a separate point: Your train is supposed to leave Blackfriars at 17:01 and go round to Wimbledon to arrive at 17:32. To achieve the same arrival time, you’d need to get on the District line at 16:54 but at least if it’s a missed connection / you’re running 5 minutes late you can arrive at 17:40 on the District (or 17:47 etc) instead of 18:02. The District also operates a broad spectrum of other destinations including Victoria, Westminster, Bank, Tower Hill etc.

So the question is this: Do passengers seriously want to board a wedged 8 car 700 (as pleasant as it is now having Air Con) and it run every 30 minutes or do they want the flexibility? If the answer is the latter, you get two choices of improve frequencies (which would mean forcing one direction on the Sutton Loop to go into/out of Victoria or London Bridge) or change passenger habits. Realistically, the Herne Hill problem is one we suggest doesn’t exist but which technically does and could be improved markedly by changing passenger behaviours.

Realistically, if you take the route via Peckham Rye to it’s full potential of 8tph, you would look to offer 4tph towards either Wimbledon or Mitchum Junction with 2tph likely to Beckenham Junction and another 2tph to somewhere like East Croydon via Streatham.

In any event, if you ‘interweave’ 4tph from Victoria, Brixton and Herne Hill (many people report Brixton as being a destination from South London that they can’t normally reach) to Tulse Hill and Streatham you can create a relatively easy same-platform interchange at Streatham with some destinations enabling people to happily swap between London Bridge and ‘new’ Victoria trains with ease and with the other benefit of previously Blackfriars-served stations having an improved frequency of 4tph linking to a further 4tph at Herne Hill; meaning you’re basically on a new quarter-hourly service with a cross-platform changing only taking an extra 5 minutes of your time.

I would also have to admit the likely conversion of the Wimbledon Loop into a Tram between Sutton and Wimbledon makes this all completely null and void anyway as it will necessitate 15-minutely services from Wimbledon towards Tooting and also change passenger habits anyway! The same has to be said for the introduction of Crossrail 2 which the Sutton Loop tram seems to be linked to even if unofficially.

The Herne Hill problem does exist; it just isn’t seen as one nor is a whole host of journey changes and such noted by most on the forum.

Bald Rick · 7 Aug 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
Now, this is an interesting point.

If you live in, say, Wimbledon, you will have a situation whereby you can take a 31 minute journey to Blackfriars which only operates every 30 minutes; or you can take a 38 minute journey on the District line which I believe operates on that particular stretch something akin to every 7.5 minutes in peak or about every 10 minutes off peak.

Now, consider a separate point: Your train is supposed to leave Blackfriars at 17:01 and go round to Wimbledon to arrive at 17:32. To achieve the same arrival time, you’d need to get on the District line at 16:54 but at least if it’s a missed connection / you’re running 5 minutes late you can arrive at 17:40 on the District (or 17:47 etc) instead of 18:02. The District also operates a broad spectrum of other destinations including Victoria, Westminster, Bank, Tower Hill etc.

So the question is this: Do passengers seriously want to board a wedged 8 car 700 (as pleasant as it is now having Air Con) and it run every 30 minutes or do they want the flexibility? If the answer is the latter, you get two choices of improve frequencies (which would mean forcing one direction on the Sutton Loop to go into/out of Victoria or London Bridge) or change passenger habits. Realistically, the Herne Hill problem is one we suggest doesn’t exist but which technically does and could be improved markedly by changing passenger behaviours.

Realistically, if you take the route via Peckham Rye to it’s full potential of 8tph, you would look to offer 4tph towards either Wimbledon or Mitchum Junction with 2tph likely to Beckenham Junction and another 2tph to somewhere like East Croydon via Streatham.

In any event, if you ‘interweave’ 4tph from Victoria, Brixton and Herne Hill (many people report Brixton as being a destination from South London that they can’t normally reach) to Tulse Hill and Streatham you can create a relatively easy same-platform interchange at Streatham with some destinations enabling people to happily swap between London Bridge and ‘new’ Victoria trains with ease and with the other benefit of previously Blackfriars-served stations having an improved frequency of 4tph linking to a further 4tph at Herne Hill; meaning you’re basically on a new quarter-hourly service with a cross-platform changing only taking an extra 5 minutes of your time.

I would also have to admit the likely conversion of the Wimbledon Loop into a Tram between Sutton and Wimbledon makes this all completely null and void anyway as it will necessitate 15-minutely services from Wimbledon towards Tooting and also change passenger habits anyway! The same has to be said for the introduction of Crossrail 2 which the Sutton Loop tram seems to be linked to even if unofficially.

The Herne Hill problem does exist; it just isn’t seen as one nor is a whole host of journey changes and such noted by most on the forum.

I’ve read this three times now, and you’ve completely lost me, sorry.

Perhaps you could start with explaining exactly what you think the problem is.

ComUtoR · 7 Aug 2019

Sooooo 'The Plan™' is to spend millions on reconfiguring the station and disrupting hundreds of services, completely rewriting the timetable and changing pathways, routes etc, and causing more problems for thousands, if not millions, of passengers, purely because of a 1/2 minute clash at Herne Hill North Jn ?

Have you considered the impact that route rationalization has ? If you look at Blackfriars; they rationalized the route so that London Bridge goes through the core and the Holborns go into the bays. They destroyed the flexibility of having both options and any problems in the core have wide reaching consequences.

I hate being held at VS125 at the best of times and it frustrates the hell out of me. It impacts right time railway and getting held at VS131 for another clash makes it worse. I'm no planner but surely a small change (yes I'm aware) at the junction to re-time so that the clash is removed is far better than getting the crayons out.

4-SUB 4732 · 8 Aug 2019

Bald Rick said:
I’ve read this three times now, and you’ve completely lost me, sorry.

Perhaps you could start with explaining exactly what you think the problem is.

1) If you live in Wimbledon (or maybe Tooting), why get on a Thameslink train that only runs every 30 minutes and is wedge-loaded when you can use the Underground which is vastly more frequent and offers much better flexibility even if journey times are slightly longer.
2) On that basis, why run through trains? Why run 8-car trains anyway? The option exists to extend the 700s to 12-car so we could lengthen them all and then just give most (or all) capacity on through Thameslink services on the Core to stuff via London Bridge and the Brighton Main Line + Branches.
3) Run services from the Bromley and Beckenham area to Blackfriars, and services from Tulse Hill etc. to Victoria via Brixton instead, giving new journey opportunities and making use of the island platform to encourage changing of trains.
4) Increase services from Tulse Hill via Peckham Rye to London Bridge to 8tph especially at peak and therefore provide solid journey opportunities to London Bridge (Northern + Jubilee + Thameslink), Peckham Rye (Overground), etc. This would placate a fair amount of "people want to go to the City".
5) Herne Hill is a problem that needs to be fixed but people don't seem to see it or see a wider picture beyond "Oooh the Sutton Loop needs trains to Blackfriars".

hwl · 8 Aug 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
1) If you live in Wimbledon (or maybe Tooting), why get on a Thameslink train that only runs every 30 minutes and is wedge-loaded when you can use the Underground which is vastly more frequent and offers much better flexibility even if journey times are slightly longer.
2) On that basis, why run through trains? Why run 8-car trains anyway? The option exists to extend the 700s to 12-car so we could lengthen them all and then just give most (or all) capacity on through Thameslink services on the Core to stuff via London Bridge and the Brighton Main Line + Branches.
3) Run services from the Bromley and Beckenham area to Blackfriars, and services from Tulse Hill etc. to Victoria via Brixton instead, giving new journey opportunities and making use of the island platform to encourage changing of trains.
4) Increase services from Tulse Hill via Peckham Rye to London Bridge to 8tph especially at peak and therefore provide solid journey opportunities to London Bridge (Northern + Jubilee + Thameslink), Peckham Rye (Overground), etc. This would placate a fair amount of "people want to go to the City".
5) Herne Hill is a problem that needs to be fixed but people don't seem to see it or see a wider picture beyond "Oooh the Sutton Loop needs trains to Blackfriars".

A lot of people don't seem to agree with you and a lot of them have a lot of experience and data.

You still haven't answered my earlier question about what you would do to solve the 8 car platform issues on the MML stopping services (which happen to pair nice with Sutton Loop services and other 8 car services south of the Thames).

You may not be aware but there are still a number of the 2018 timetable changes not yet implemented in South London because they require the full 24tph Thameslink Service to run to create (terminating) platform space at Blackfriars for example the LBG - Sutton - Wimbledon - Blackfriars and v/v services which seem to fix a fair number of the issues you raise.

hwl · 8 Aug 2019

Bald Rick said:
I’ve read this three times now, and you’ve completely lost me, sorry.

Perhaps you could start with explaining exactly what you think the problem is.

Solutions in search of problems???

dewsnapsliding · 8 Aug 2019

hwl said:
for example the LBG - Sutton - Wimbledon - Blackfriars and v/v services which seem to fix a fair number of the issues you raise.

I know of the Wimbledon - LBG (via Sutton) and v/v peak services but is there an intention for more all day?

What are these planned services please?

hwl · 8 Aug 2019

dewsnapsliding said:
I know of the Wimbledon - LBG (via Sutton) and v/v peak services but is there an intention for more all day?

What are these planned services please?

The aim is to get 4tph on the loop with 2tph Southern LBG - Sutton - Wimbledon - Blackfriars and 2tph Southern Blackfriars - Wimbledon - Sutton - LBG replacing the traditional London Bridge - Wimbledon services, the problem is largely lack of space at Blackfriars until the last Kent TL services start running through the core. Using under utilised 455s and provides a massive uplift in Streatham/Tulse Hill capacity to Blackfriars and LBG. All in the Failplan 2020 documentation...

DogsOnTrains · 8 Aug 2019

My thameslink idea would be to include EMRs Corby services similar to the way the great northern Cambridge services have been included. Maybe a Corby to Portsmouth via Gatwick could be done, or Corby to Hastings.

I could go full crayonista and say quadrupling the central section from st Pancras to Blackfriars but that ain't ever gonna happen.

swt_passenger · 8 Aug 2019

DogsOnTrains said:
My thameslink idea would be to include EMRs Corby services similar to the way the great northern Cambridge services have been included. Maybe a Corby to Portsmouth via Gatwick could be done, or Corby to Hastings.

I could go full crayonista and say quadrupling the central section from st Pancras to Blackfriars but that ain't ever gonna happen.

I realise you’re a new member, but you can be confident that both your ideas have been posted numerous times already over the last few years.

Corby onto Thameslink could only work as an extension of an existing service, because paths through the Thameslink core section are capped at 24 tph, and they would need either additional rolling stock, or shortening of an existing planned route to provide the stock. But extending an existing Bedford service doesn’t provide increased capacity south of Bedford, does it.

Bald Rick · 8 Aug 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
1) If you live in Wimbledon (or maybe Tooting), why get on a Thameslink train that only runs every 30 minutes and is wedge-loaded when you can use the Underground which is vastly more frequent and offers much better flexibility even if journey times are slightly longer.
2) On that basis, why run through trains? Why run 8-car trains anyway? The option exists to extend the 700s to 12-car so we could lengthen them all and then just give most (or all) capacity on through Thameslink services on the Core to stuff via London Bridge and the Brighton Main Line + Branches.
3) Run services from the Bromley and Beckenham area to Blackfriars, and services from Tulse Hill etc. to Victoria via Brixton instead, giving new journey opportunities and making use of the island platform to encourage changing of trains.
4) Increase services from Tulse Hill via Peckham Rye to London Bridge to 8tph especially at peak and therefore provide solid journey opportunities to London Bridge (Northern + Jubilee + Thameslink), Peckham Rye (Overground), etc. This would placate a fair amount of "people want to go to the City".
5) Herne Hill is a problem that needs to be fixed but people don't seem to see it or see a wider picture beyond "Oooh the Sutton Loop needs trains to Blackfriars".

None of these statements is a problem. They are mostly solutions.

Problems could be:

* what level of forecast passenger demand is there on the Sutton / Wimbledon - Streatham - Tulse Hill - Victoria / Blackfriars corridor, and how can this be provided.
* as above but on the Bromley - Beckenham - Herne Hill - Blackfriars / Victoria corridor
* What is the level of delay at Herne Hill caused by conflicting movements, and how can this best be reduced

dewsnapsliding · 8 Aug 2019

hwl said:
The aim is to get 4tph on the loop with 2tph Southern LBG - Sutton - Wimbledon - Blackfriars and 2tph Southern Blackfriars - Wimbledon - Sutton - LBG replacing the traditional London Bridge - Wimbledon services, the problem is largely lack of space at Blackfriars until the last Kent TL services start running through the core. Using under utilised 455s and provides a massive uplift in Streatham/Tulse Hill capacity to Blackfriars and LBG. All in the Failplan 2020 documentation...

I take it this is in addition to the 2tph Thameslink services I.e 4 tph in each direction?

swt_passenger · 8 Aug 2019

dewsnapsliding said:
I take it this is in addition to the 2tph Thameslink services I.e 4 tph in each direction?

Yes it is, some parts of the intended services are running now, but none that include the Blackfriars half of the overall route.

To add to the earlier info, these are the service definitions in the last GTR consultation:

Route SN3.11:
London Blackfriars – Peckham Rye – Herne Hill – Streatham – Wimbledon – Sutton
Serving: London Blackfriars, Elephant & Castle, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham, Mitcham Eastfields, Mitcham Junction, Hackbridge, Carshalton and Sutton.
Trains will generally continue to Wimbledon and London Bridge as Route SN3.12.

Route SN3.12:
London Bridge– Peckham Rye – Mitcham Eastfields – Sutton
Serving: London Bridge, South Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Peckham Rye, East Dulwich, North Dulwich, Tulse Hill, Streatham, Tooting, Haydons Road, Wimbledon, Wimbledon Chase, South Merton, Morden South, St Helier, Sutton Common, West Sutton and Sutton.
Trains will generally continue to Mitcham Eastfields and London Blackfriars as Route SN3.11

The source document is not available online AFAICS, fortunately I kept a copy.

cle · 8 Aug 2019

SN3.11 having Peckham Rye is a mistake, right? Should be Elephant, or just nothing and straight to Herne Hill, as it's the only route.

swt_passenger · 8 Aug 2019

cle said:
SN3.11 having Peckham Rye is a mistake, right? Should be Elephant, or just nothing and straight to Herne Hill, as it's the only route.

Must be a mistake on the original, it’s a cut and paste. The text after “serving:” appears correct though.

Flinn Reed · 16 Aug 2019

I think Thameslink services should instead have been designed as another crossrail, rather then integrating longer-distance services to destinations such as Peterborough or Brighton. It doesn't work using the same type of rolling stock as longer-distance, commuter and metro all at once, as well as for short journeys within the central core. I would instead opt to terminate services to further destinations at terminals, swapping for metro or commuter routes. These routes could then come under TFL control as a second crossrail line. I find Thameslink to be a very useful link within inner London, but is very underused at most times compared to other lines, which could change if fully integrated into the TFL network.

North of St Pancras:
- Bedford services would terminate at St Pancras high level, possibly being integrated with the EMR electric services to Corby.
- Services to St Albans City and Luton would remain, possibly with some St Albans services extended to Luton to provide more frequent trains to the airport
- Great Northern services to Hertford/Welwyn could possibly be diverted into Thameslink via the Kings Cross Tunnel, with the Moorgate section replaced by a new Overground shuttle route to Finsbury Park (reviving the Northern City Line)
- Watford DC services could be another possibility, diverting via Primrose Hill and Camden Road Station into St Pancras
- Metropolitan Line services could even be diverted, this unique line of longer-distance services including fast variations would be more suitable as a crossrail line than tube, with a new connecting section around West Hampstead, though this would require an increase on the Circle Line to compensate (this would retain some connections to St Pancras and Farringdon, and could relieve pressure on the Jubilee by connecting to London Bridge)

South of Blackfriars:
- Longer distance services including to Brighton and Horsham would terminate at Blackfriars or London Bridge
- Services to Gatwick Airport would remain, as well as possibly services to Sutton and Orpington
- A variety of other South London metro routes could be added, taking over from Southern or Southeastern.

hwl · 16 Aug 2019

Flinn Reed said:
I think Thameslink services should instead have been designed as another crossrail, rather then integrating longer-distance services to destinations such as Peterborough or Brighton. It doesn't work using the same type of rolling stock as longer-distance, commuter and metro all at once, as well as for short journeys within the central core. I would instead opt to terminate services to further destinations at terminals, swapping for metro or commuter routes. These routes could then come under TFL control as a second crossrail line. I find Thameslink to be a very useful link within inner London, but is very underused at most times compared to other lines, which could change if fully integrated into the TFL network.

North of St Pancras:
- Bedford services would terminate at St Pancras high level, possibly being integrated with the EMR electric services to Corby.
- Services to St Albans City and Luton would remain, possibly with some St Albans services extended to Luton to provide more frequent trains to the airport
- Great Northern services to Hertford/Welwyn could possibly be diverted into Thameslink via the Kings Cross Tunnel, with the Moorgate section replaced by a new Overground shuttle route to Finsbury Park (reviving the Northern City Line)
- Watford DC services could be another possibility, diverting via Primrose Hill and Camden Road Station into St Pancras
- Metropolitan Line services could even be diverted, this unique line of longer-distance services including fast variations would be more suitable as a crossrail line than tube, with a new connecting section around West Hampstead, though this would require an increase on the Circle Line to compensate (this would retain some connections to St Pancras and Farringdon, and could relieve pressure on the Jubilee by connecting to London Bridge)

South of Blackfriars:
- Longer distance services including to Brighton and Horsham would terminate at Blackfriars or London Bridge
- Services to Gatwick Airport would remain, as well as possibly services to Sutton and Orpington
- A variety of other South London metro routes could be added, taking over from Southern or Southeastern.

Not enough capacity at St Pancras, Blackfriars or London Bridge to terminate those fast trains or the track layouts and signaling on the approaches to London Bridge or Blackfriars...

JonathanH · 17 Aug 2019

Flinn Reed said:
It doesn't work using the same type of rolling stock as longer-distance, commuter and metro all at once, as well as for short journeys within the central core I think Thameslink services should instead have been designed as another crossrail, rather then integrating longer-distance services to destinations such as Peterborough or Brighton..

Are you trying to suggest that class 700-type stock could never have been specified if trains from Brighton terminated at London Bridge or Peterborough terminated at Kings Cross instead of continuing through London?

Flinn Reed said:
I think Thameslink services should instead have been designed as another crossrail, rather then integrating longer-distance services to destinations such as Peterborough or Brighton.

Do you concede that people from the Brighton line travel to destinations beyond London Bridge and people from north of London travel to destinations south of the Euston Road? Through trains to Gatwick from the ECML appear to be doing quite well.

Flinn Reed said:
I find Thameslink to be a very useful link within inner London, but is very underused at most times compared to other lines, which could change if fully integrated into the TFL network

What does full integration into the TfL network entail? London has more north-south links already on the TfL network than east-west ones. Thameslink relieves the Northern line but not much else - by removing passengers crossing London from the TfL network it does make more capacity on the TfL routes.

Besides, the great thing about Thameslink is that it has enabled more 12-car trains on key routes into London that couldn't be accommodated at the existing terminal stations.

AlbertBeale · 17 Aug 2019

JonathanH said:
Are you trying to suggest that class 700-type stock could never have been specified if trains from Brighton terminated at London Bridge or Peterborough terminated at Kings Cross instead of continuing through London?

Do you concede that people from the Brighton line travel to destinations beyond London Bridge and people from north of London travel to destinations south of the Euston Road? Through trains to Gatwick from the ECML appear to be doing quite well.

What does full integration into the TfL network entail? London has more north-south links already on the TfL network than east-west ones. Thameslink relieves the Northern line but not much else - by removing passengers crossing London from the TfL network it does make more capacity on the TfL routes.

Besides, the great thing about Thameslink is that it has enabled more 12-car trains on key routes into London that couldn't be accommodated at the existing terminal stations.

Thameslink might feel like the N-S equivalent of Crossrail E-W (albeit with lots more fiddly branches!), and be used more for inner-London travel, if it were on the tube map these days.

Surely the core (Greater London) sections of both lines should be on the tube map (along with Overground, as is the case, though this is leading to clutter and removing ease of comprehension). It seems that branding needs and closely-related public services being attached to different organisations' budgets means we're likely to be left with the illogicality of Crossrail being shown on the tube map (even including parts miles out of London), but not even the core of Thameslink being shown. Bonkers.

flitwickbeds · 17 Aug 2019

North of St Pancras:
- Bedford services would terminate at St Pancras high level, possibly being integrated with the EMR electric services to Corby.
- Services to St Albans City and Luton would remain, possibly with some St Albans services extended to Luton to provide more frequent trains to the airport
- Great Northern services to Hertford/Welwyn could possibly be diverted into Thameslink via the Kings Cross Tunnel, with the Moorgate section replaced by a new Overground shuttle route to Finsbury Park (reviving the Northern City Line)
- Watford DC services could be another possibility, diverting via Primrose Hill and Camden Road Station into St Pancras
- Metropolitan Line services could even be diverted, this unique line of longer-distance services including fast variations would be more suitable as a crossrail line than tube, with a new connecting section around West Hampstead, though this would require an increase on the Circle Line to compensate (this would retain some connections to St Pancras and Farringdon, and could relieve pressure on the Jubilee by connecting to London Bridge)

South of Blackfriars:
- Longer distance services including to Brighton and Horsham would terminate at Blackfriars or London Bridge
- Services to Gatwick Airport would remain, as well as possibly services to Sutton and Orpington
- A variety of other South London metro routes could be added, taking over from Southern or Southeastern.[/QUOTE]

The whole point of the Thameslink extension in the 80s was to enable cross-London journeys without forcing people onto the Tube. My normal journey of Flitwick to Farringdon into London, and Blackfriars to Flitwick return, would be impossible under your solution without me changing onto the Tube in London, thereby putting even more people onto TfL services, or changing at Luton/St Albans and extending my journey by at least 15 minutes, but probably closer to 20 or 30 once I've changed platforms and waited for the next train.

MML · 18 Aug 2019

Key to the future growth of Thameslink is the greater use of 12-car units in place of the 8-car units.
Once the 24 tph through the 'Core' is reached the only way of increasing capacity further will be lengthening of existing services.
Stations in the 'Core' and primary stations already have platforms allowing the use of 12-car units.
However, there are many services (perhaps 50%) which only use the 8-car 700/0 units. All of the inner suburban, all-stations services and even some of the express or semi-fast services.

The Thameslink route(s) will either need further infrastructure improvements (platform lengthening) or a switch to alternative routes where the use of 12-car units can already be accommodated using existing infrastructure.
Initially this could see the use of 12-car units on ALL services between Bedford and Brighton, and at least on the semi-fast services to Redhill and Elstree.

There will come a point in time when the use of 8-car units in 'Core' station platforms cable of accommodating 12-car units is no longer seen as an efficient use of resource.

717001 · 18 Aug 2019

MML said:
Key to the future growth of Thameslink is the greater use of 12-car units in place of the 8-car units.
Once the 24 tph through the 'Core' is reached the only way of increasing capacity further will be lengthening of existing services.
Stations in the 'Core' and primary stations already have platforms allowing the use of 12-car units.
However, there are many services (perhaps 50%) which only use the 8-car 700/0 units. All of the inner suburban, all-stations services and even some of the express or semi-fast services.

The Thameslink route(s) will either need further infrastructure improvements (platform lengthening) or a switch to alternative routes where the use of 12-car units can already be accommodated using existing infrastructure.
Initially this could see the use of 12-car units on ALL services between Bedford and Brighton, and at least on the semi-fast services to Redhill and Elstree.

There will come a point in time when the use of 8-car units in 'Core' station platforms cable of accommodating 12-car units is no longer seen as an efficient use of resource.

TL have 55 twelve car trains and 60 eight car ones and these are fixed formation. So, unless the DfT does an order for more carriages plus the extra work / changes that would be needed to convert 8 cars to 12, then think they’ll be around for a while yet. Suspect there’ll be continued fine-tuning of diagrams as demand settles down but, as has been described on other threads on here, there are a range of constraints as to what can be used where (ie beyond use of SDO).

andreading · 18 Aug 2019

One simple option to improve Thameslink and deal with the Wimbledon loop issue would be to divert trains through London Bridge, West Croydon, Sutton and Wimbledon to terminate at Blackfriars. This has the merit of increasing Wimbledon loop services to 4 per hour in each direction, improves flow at Blackfriars Junction and means that services are not presenting to the core without a decent recovery time. To enable this all Epsom trains could be routed via Mitcham rather than West Croydon but same platform interchange would be available at Sutton. Of course people at Carshalton, Hackbridge, Mitcham Junction and Mitcham Eastfield might not like it. This could prompt the development of a Streatham Common Junction interchange with high level platforms on the Wimbledon and Mitcham lines.

Bald Rick · 19 Aug 2019

andreading said:
This could prompt the development of a Streatham Common Junction interchange with high level platforms on the Wimbledon and Mitcham lines.

There’s no space for high level platforms without some very expensive bridge reconstruction and junction relocations. TfL made that mistake too.

AlbertBeale · 19 Aug 2019

Bald Rick said:
There’s no space for high level platforms without some very expensive bridge reconstruction and junction relocations. TfL made that mistake too.

Do you mean TfL made that mistake in the sense that they once had an idea for high-level platforms on the Streatham route at Streatham Common?

hwl · 19 Aug 2019

AlbertBeale said:
Do you mean TfL made that mistake in the sense that they once had an idea for high-level platforms on the Streatham route at Streatham Common?

Yes and they still occasionally dream about it too...

Thameslink ideas

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member