Could Sutton loop reliability be improved by adding a timetabled layover?

[TRAX]

Can’t a layover (usual terminus dwell time) be integrated in the loop ?

Edit: Originally an answer message in another thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...p-thameslink-vs-tramlink.172891/#post-3706222

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can’t a layover (usual terminus dwell time) be integrated in the loop ?

Not without annoying people.

 

[TRAX]

Can’t they deal with it ? Surely a 10-ish minute layover isn’t anything major ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If reliability and lack of recovery time is an issue, I wonder if a better solution would be to terminate Sutton loop services at Blackfriars, rather than running through the core - as I believe was the original plan before political pressure got it changed. That minimises the scope for delays on outbound journeys, and means that any accumulated delays around the loop won't transfer to the line to Bedford.

 

[TRAX]

Does Blackfriars have the capacity ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can’t they deal with it ? Surely a 10-ish minute layover isn’t anything major ?

A 10 minute layover is obviously better than actually changing trains (which would probably incur a similar delay) but arguably feels psychologically worse to most passengers - since most people won't understand the point of a layover, so from a customer-friendly point of view, it's probably to be avoided if possible.

Perhaps more seriously, a layover would logically need to be at either Sutton or Wimbledon - since those are the places that see most passengers changing. Wimbledon certainly doesn't have the capacity for trains to stay in the one bi-directional platform for 10 minutes - so that's a non-starter. And I'm not sure if Sutton would have any capacity either?

Does Blackfriars have the capacity ?

Trains from Sevenoaks/Orpington already terminate at Blackfriars. You could simply swap those with the Sutton loop ones, running those trains through the core instead - since the Sevenoaks/Orpington trains don't have any issues about running round the loop.

 

[TRAX]

A layover wouldn’t be customer-friendly, I agree with you. But if that layover helps ease out the service on the rest of the line (and the Core), surely the benefits are much larger ?

Where would you make the Sevenoaks/Orpington trains terminate after going through the core ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does Blackfriars have the capacity ?

Not without transferring other planned services from Blackfriars. (They are not be running yet, but are earmarked for other services, such as the planned Southern services round the loop.)

They’d then have to find another 4 tph towards Thameslink to maintain the 24 tph.

 

[Ethano92]

A layover wouldn’t be customer-friendly, I agree with you. But if that layover helps ease out the service on the rest of the line (and the Core), surely the benefits are much larger ?

Where would you make the Sevenoaks/Orpington trains terminate after going through the core ?

Where the Sutton trains would've gone? So the stoppers to st Alban's and Luton. From travelling around the Sutton loop a few times, it does seem trains do stop for a few minutes already but that may just be because of how quickly they get through all of the quiet stations from Wimbledon.

 

[Kite159]

Isn't there already some padding built into the timetable for the Wimbledon call? I've seen services arrive a good 4 minutes early before and have to wait time. Although that was before the big timetable change in May.

 

[hassaanhc]

On the similar loop service at Hounslow and Kingston, such a layover of 3-5 minutes has existed for many years and works very well. And they're entered in the system as true loop services, so local journeys near Hounslow or Kingston appear correctly on journey planners. A complete difference to,l the mess at Sutton where both sides of the loop are separate services, and you get journey planners adding in a change of train where none exists (along with the minimum connection time between two TL services having to be fudged in order to stop it giving a 30 minute wait!)