Fixing Thameslink

[bringbackcrouc]

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability.

To start I’d…

a) stop any trains to or from elephant castle going through the core
b) create a separate Wimbledon loop line and hand it over to TFL
c) stop Thameslink trains going to Rainham
d) rationalise remaining southern destinations so they either went to Brighton or Gatwick with shuttles doing the connections.

What does everyone else think?

 

[JonathanH]

What does everyone else think?

It would be even more of a 'damp squid' if it was cut back as you suggest.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

But then it would be a high reliability, high capacity service with 24 trains an hour through the core with considerably less interaction with other lines.

 

[JonathanH]

But then it would be a high reliability, high capacity service with 24 trains an hour through the core with considerably less interaction with other lines.

How many are going to Brighton and how many to Gatwick under your plan?

 

[Hadders]

Is there sufficient capacity to tuen the required number of trains at Brighton and Gatwick? This is why trains terminate at places like Horsham.

Good luck engaging with the local stakeholders about the loss pf services through the core from places like Sutton.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the idea of the OP is 12tph to Brighton and 12tph to Gatwick at peak times with everything calling all stations (maybe not Balcombe to create a reversing path at Haywards Heath) and everything else cleared out of the way.

There would then be shuttles from Victoria to East Croydon, South Croydon to East Grinstead / Uckfield, Purley to Caterham / Tattenham Corner, Redhill to Reigate / Tonbridge, Three Bridges to Horsham / Arun Valley, Haywards Heath to Eastbourne, Preston Park to Littlehampton with no through running from those routes.

This would make the Brighton Main Line and Redhill routes into high capacity metro routes and simplify the operation.

Just another way of setting up the service really.

 

[Richardr]

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability.

To start I’d…

a) stop any trains to or from elephant castle going through the core
b) create a separate Wimbledon loop line and hand it over to TFL
c) stop Thameslink trains going to Rainham
d) rationalise remaining southern destinations so they either went to Brighton or Gatwick with shuttles doing the connections.

What does everyone else think?

Under this plan where would the trains from Elephant and Castle go? I think there are 8 an hour at peak times. Your Wimbledon loop would presumably max out the stopping platforms at Blackfriars.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability.

Probably.

 

[tbtc]

I can see logic in the OP’s ideas

Crossrail has been deliberately built as simple scheme, two branches at each end, nothing too complicated, meaning rebuffing the various “stakeholders” and suggestions so wanted through trains from Bristol to Norwich or branches to places like Tring or various other complications

Essentially the Crossrail scheme seems designed around what works (and what didn’t work!) with lots of other projects - they’ve appreciated that Scope Creep can strangle the usefulness of many proposals, and that sometimes you’re better going with a fairly basic operation instead (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

However, Thameslink (which bisects the same city, a similarly high frequency combination of “Home Counties commuter route plus high capacity Underground substitute plus Home Counties commuter route”) has gone in the opposite direction and tried to provide a half hourly journey link between as many places as possible, as if they’ve seen the Gordian Knot of Manchester’s Castlefield and tried to replicate it

This means that Thameslink’s core is dependent on a wide variety of lines, it only takes one delay in somewhere like Rainham to disrupt things (rather than the Crossrail approach of “if everything is ten minutes late, nothing is ten minutes late”)

So I can certainly see the desirability for a simpler Thameslink. Sadly, as we’ve seen with the smaller number of Sutton passengers over the years, once a line has a direct link though the “core”, it’s hard to take it off the map, and I think it’s too late now to start rationalising the muddle of Thameslink routes (even if it might have been better to keep things more focused on the Gatwick routes in the first place)

 

[XAM2175]

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability.

For future reference, the word you're after is "squib" - a miniature explosive device that will perform poorly, or not at all, when wet.

 

[etr221]

Retention of the Wimbledon-Sutton loop through the core was a political decision - plan was for it to terminate it at Blackfriars. Perhaps the missed opportunity of Thameslink was four tracks from Blackfriars to Farringdon (with terminating bays there): the LC&D to Holborn Viaduct had been 4 track, and with goods depot site at Farringdon it could have been done relatively cheaply.

And service to Rainham was a late addition - which I would think was difficult to schedule east of London Bridge onto the South Eastern: apparently it was to some extent a case of 'where can we send these?' rather than a good target destination. Sending everything through core from St Pancras down to New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction would seem far simpler...

Others will be more familiar with the north side...

But perhaps the root of the Thameslink problem is that it was a link between the BR lines into Holborn Viaduct and St Pancras (adding a few branches to each - and closing the termini), while Crossrail is far more an LT/TfL 'super tube' across the centre, extending out into suburbia.

 

[30907]

Retention of the Wimbledon-Sutton loop through the core was a political decision - plan was for it to terminate it at Blackfriars. Perhaps the missed opportunity of Thameslink was four tracks from Blackfriars to Farringdon (with terminating bays there): the LC&D to Holborn Viaduct had been 4 track, and with goods depot site at Farringdon it could have been done relatively cheaply.

Really? As opposed to the original scheme which used existing lines only?

And service to Rainham was a late addition - which I would think was difficult to schedule east of London Bridge onto the South Eastern: apparently it was to some extent a case of 'where can we send these?' rather than a good target destination.

Agree, but it's only 2tph of 22-24. I thought there wasn't capacity down the Brighton line?
I would have sent them to Maidstone East via the Chislehurst loops, but not sure they would load well

Sending everything through core from St Pancras down to New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction would seem far simpler...

 

[SE%Traveller]

Running 8 TPH from the bays is possible, they've done it before in times of disruption before with 4tph from Platform 3 in the Denmark Hill direction & 4tph to Sutton from Platform4.

Indeed they actually ran 8tph via elephant & castle terminating at Blackfriars weekend just gone, but the Sevenoaks service was turning around at Platform 2 which they wouldn't normally be doing! (there was a reduced service through the Core too).

I think Thameslink has generally been running better as of late, that said IMHO the idea of simplification and increased frequency is a good one. They're implementing such a scheme at Lewisham from next weekend (well 50% of it at least).

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Why does the Lewisham scheme result in 23 minute gaps on the Greenwich line?

 

[SE%Traveller]

This is the shame about the recast in my opinion, they've implemented the simplification without the increase frequency to soften the blow (as some might perceive it) so there is going to be quite a bit of disgruntlement. Still it should make it easier to ramp up services in the future if demand allows but in the current climate my suspicion is that it will be some way off.

The more pressing issue on the Elephant & Castle routes is peak time capacity, the trains are pretty much full again (the nostalgia of a 700 nibbling at my ankle's as the door's crushed us in at Denmark Hill last Tuesday was underwealming).

They're reinstating the Beckenham Junction service from next week and and running an extra train from Dartford into the bays. so there's a bit of an improvement their.

The wildly optimistic side of me hopes that the new Dartford Service is a precursor to a peak train service to Blackfriars every 10 minutes from Nunhead, Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill. The more nasty and suspicious side of me sees it as precursor to removing the last crossing move at Lewisham (the Victoria/ Dartford Service)

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Controversial opinion alert: they should get rid of all crossing moves at Lewisham

Second controversial opinion alert: that logic applies with equal force to the Greenwich Thameslink services crossing outside London Bridge (as well as the E+C Thameslink crossing outside Blackfriars).

 

[JonathanH]

Controversial opinion alert: they should get rid of all crossing moves at Lewisham

How? It just moves the problem to Tanners Hill Junction.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Reopen Lewisham road and run a shuttle!

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps the missed opportunity of Thameslink was four tracks from Blackfriars to Farringdon (with terminating bays there): the LC&D to Holborn Viaduct had been 4 track, and with goods depot site at Farringdon it could have been done relatively cheaply.

relatively cheaply compared to what? Crossrail? It would certainly have been billions.

and for what benefit?

 

[Hadders]

Part of the reason for Thameslink is that while you can run more trains on the EMCL there was insufficient space at Kings Cross to turn then round. This problem is oovercome by sending some of the trains through the core to places like Horsham and Brighton.

We now have more trains on the ECML as a result (e.g. Stevenage has 4 fast trains an hour to London rather than 2).

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Part of the reason for Thameslink is that while you can run more trains on the EMCL there was insufficient space at Kings Cross to turn then round. This problem is oovercome by sending some of the trains through the core to places like Horsham and Brighton.

We now have more trains on the ECML as a result (e.g. Stevenage has 4 fast trains an hour to London rather than 2).

If there was insufficient space at King’s Cross, why did they then remove track at platforms 9 to 11?

 

[Backroom_boy]

If there was insufficient space at King’s Cross, why did they then remove track at platforms 9 to 11?

Because the trains were going via Thameslink?

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Because the trains were going via Thameslink?

But why remove the resilience and redundancy that comes with additional platforms should Thameslink snarl up.

Is the cost of maintaining that additional track and set of point that it warrants removal?

 

[Bald Rick]

If there was insufficient space at King’s Cross, why did they then remove track at platforms 9 to 11?

“They” didn’t. Only platform 11, which was too short for the longer Thameslink trains.

 

[Hadders]

But why remove the resilience and redundancy that comes with additional platforms should Thameslink snarl up.

Is the cost of maintaining that additional track and set of point that it warrants removal?

I'm sure @Bald Rick will be better placed to advise but simplifying the Kings Cross layout made it more resilient, increased linespeed and the platform 10/11 island was narrow and could only just fit 8 car trains so was limited in what it could be used for.

 

[LUYMun]

Controversial opinion alert: they should get rid of all crossing moves at Lewisham

How? It just moves the problem to Tanners Hill Junction.

It would be wishful thinking, despite being an obvious solution, to create a fly-over/dive-under in place of Lewisham Junction. Thanks to the surrounding urban environment, this would be impossible to achieve.

Looking at the Bakerloo line extension beyond Lewisham, if the Hayes/Beckenham Junction line was transferred to full LU control (including running all services as the Bakerloo), I'd argue that this would relieve pressure on the Tanners Hill Junction, thus strengthening the case of disabling crossing movements - this argument would be stronger if the Hayes line was segregated from the National Rail network by closing Ladywell, Parks Bridge and Courthill North Junctions.

 

[Magdalia]

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid

For future reference, the word you're after is "squib" - a miniature explosive device that will perform poorly, or not at all, when wet.

An unfortunate choice of figure of speech. Thameslink is actually a dry squib which occasionally explodes spectacularly, see previous discussions on RailUKforums.

 

[cle]

The wildly optimistic side of me hopes that the new Dartford Service is a precursor to a peak train service to Blackfriars every 10 minutes from Nunhead, Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill. The more nasty and suspicious side of me sees it as precursor to removing the last crossing move at Lewisham (the Victoria/ Dartford Service)

I wish it was like this when I lived near Denmark Hill.

The Victoria service is so well used, but yes - there were long rumours of the Dartford running either to Hayes or Dartford but via Sidcup. No impact really inbound - weekends it was nice to go Denmark Hill - Blackheath though.

It would be wishful thinking, despite being an obvious solution, to create a fly-over/dive-under in place of Lewisham Junction. Thanks to the surrounding urban environment, this would be impossible to achieve.

Looking at the Bakerloo line extension beyond Lewisham, if the Hayes/Beckenham Junction line was transferred to full LU control (including running all services as the Bakerloo), I'd argue that this would relieve pressure on the Tanners Hill Junction, thus strengthening the case of disabling crossing movements - this argument would be stronger if the Hayes line was segregated from the National Rail network by closing Ladywell, Parks Bridge and Courthill North Junctions.

This can't come soon enough. 4tph more spare out of London Bridge which can go somewhere (not sure where they fit!) Less complexity to the network. Small but very frequent trains through South London - another timetable which can be ripped up.

And good journey times to the West End. City a little longer, but you'd still be able to change at Lewisham for all of the SE termini. Which you might have done previously at London Bridge (especially as 2tph skip Lewisham today via Hayes). And you still have Waterloo and Charing Cross on the Bakerloo anyway - plus more, like direct Oxford Circus.

New stock would help the current horror/threat of the Bakerloo coming your way.

 

[JamieL]

Are there any plans to replace the rolling stock on Thameslink? Used the service today for the first time and thought it was dirty, loud and quite a bumpy ride. Ran on time though and clearly a very frequent service.

 

[JonathanH]

Are there any plans to replace the rolling stock on Thameslink?

No. The current rolling stock will be in operation for the next 30 years.