Is the Thameslink idea flawed

[shinkansen1966]

GN link being dropped, services being cut back, maps being ripped up. What's going on? Where exactly did you read or hear of this?

 

[mackenzie_blu]

GN link being dropped, services being cut back, maps being ripped up. What's going on? Where exactly did you read or hear of this?

Rail press and internal stuff.

 

[shinkansen1966]

The talk of cuts doesn't suprise me.

In recent months, the govt have announced some promising investment in the railways including several electrification projects on top of Thameslink and Crossrail. And now goverment finances are in a mess and cuts will have to be made. If the Tories get elected, wonder which, if all these projects will be cut to save money.

 

[Aictos]

Although it would be nice to have services from the GN direct to the TL, when it does get confirmed of it being dropped then it would be a expensive mistake considering the money and time spent on the link.
Getting connections at the moment between both routes using St Pancras and Kings Cross is nothing short of a doddle and if the link was dropped, might actually help the Thameslink run more smoothly without extra services to worry about.

 

[jon0844]

I presume the link can be built at a later stage, so at least the difficult part (the tunneling) has been done.

I agree that it could help services through the core, although I always figured the services from GN to TL would run more often at off-peak times and weekends when there will be less trains through the core anyway.

 

[jopsuk]

As far as the link goes, is the pointwork on the TL side in place? Also, is the junction there grade seperated or level? I know on the GN side that there's a wall in the way at the moment and it looks like that'll be a flat junction with the slow lines (which by that stage of the Kings Cross approaches are both on the west side)

 

[Waverley125]

IMO it is flawed, yes. Bringing some of the GN services in is a bad idea, and more ought to be concentrated on the northbound TFL services which could become part of Thameslink e.g. Stevenage & Hertford loop services, which is 6tph. The peterborough & cambridge stopper could be moved also, as long as it ran through to somewhere in the south like Ashford. However, trying to fit the Kings Lynn & Cambridge services in is just too ambitious IMO. If you take, say, 4tph Bedford-Brighton, 6tph Stevenage-Wimbledon, 1tph Peterborough-Ashford, 1tph Cambridge-Ashford, then you've got 12tph and a 5 minute headway through the core, without evening looking at the possibility of including the Watford DC line.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

As far as the link goes, is the pointwork on the TL side in place? Also, is the junction there grade seperated or level? I know on the GN side that there's a wall in the way at the moment and it looks like that'll be a flat junction with the slow lines (which by that stage of the Kings Cross approaches are both on the west side)

No track work has been done. Its a plain junction so a shutdown will be needed to ensure the track work is in place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although it would be nice to have services from the GN direct to the TL, when it does get confirmed of it being dropped then it would be a expensive mistake considering the money and time spent on the link.
Getting connections at the moment between both routes using St Pancras and Kings Cross is nothing short of a doddle and if the link was dropped, might actually help the Thameslink run more smoothly without extra services to worry about.

Actually the big worry at the moment is TL infamous delays impacting the ECML and causing huge fines for delayed trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IMO it is flawed, yes. Bringing some of the GN services in is a bad idea, and more ought to be concentrated on the northbound TFL services which could become part of Thameslink e.g. Stevenage & Hertford loop services, which is 6tph. The peterborough & cambridge stopper could be moved also, as long as it ran through to somewhere in the south like Ashford. However, trying to fit the Kings Lynn & Cambridge services in is just too ambitious IMO. If you take, say, 4tph Bedford-Brighton, 6tph Stevenage-Wimbledon, 1tph Peterborough-Ashford, 1tph Cambridge-Ashford, then you've got 12tph and a 5 minute headway through the core, without evening looking at the possibility of including the Watford DC line.

There is no Kings Lynn - Thameslink train planned tho. Wimbledon/Sutton trains are likely to be terimating at Blackfrairs unless political pressure can work. Note services to Ashford are to be stopped and replaced by a Maidstone East service.

Why would the DC Lines be put onto Thameslink and where would they connect?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although it would be nice to have services from the GN direct to the TL, when it does get confirmed of it being dropped then it would be a expensive mistake considering the money and time spent on the link.
Getting connections at the moment between both routes using St Pancras and Kings Cross is nothing short of a doddle and if the link was dropped, might actually help the Thameslink run more smoothly without extra services to worry about.

Alot of it is the issue that the ATO seems to be dropped so the Core just can't cope with all these trains.

 

[Waddon]

Wonder if its too late for them to change the Blackfriars design to 4 through platforms instead of 2 + 2 terminating? It has always seemed crazy to me that this wasn't the design they chose. It would give the core route so much more operational flexibility. Also, seeing as so many failures occur at the point of voltage changeover, will there be the possibility of reversing trains from both direction at City Thameslink?

 

[Aictos]

That's one valid point I agree with Waddon on which is any design should have 4 though platforms as any failure in the Core could limp to Blackfriars and clear the line that much quicker with the option of two south facing bays to cater for the Sutton services as one would probably not be able to cope in the peak.

 

[Minstral25]

They should have built the box at St P big enough for 4 platforms as well.

Presumably the cuts will mean cheaper options for the rebuild of London Bridge which may not be a bad idea.

Perhaps - Platforms one and two for Cannon Street

Then 3&4 as Southbound services and 5&6 for Northbound/Charing Cross trains.

Thameslink trains in the middle 4&5 - Coming down from Blackfriars bring both North and Southbound lines to join the Charing Cross lines in the middle

Would also mean cross platform connections towards London/Bedford and towards Brighton/Kent.

Then South of London Bridge a new flyover from platforms 4&5 Thameslink over to the middle of the Fast Brighton (North and South) lines and join.

Hard to explain but if that makes sense there would be no flat crossings in opposite directions enabling a smooth service rather than the conflicting moves at the middle.

Add to this another flyover for the South bound slow line from London Bridge before new cross gate - then the station could be split inner and outer suburban and agin reducing conflicting moves.

The only difficult bit would be widening the approach from Charing Cross / Blackfriars to be four track from the current 2/3 track - hence I guess a new flyover Borough Market!

 

[shinkansen1966]

Be interesting to see when exactly the planned Thameslink cuts will be announced and how they will be sold to the public.

Will the Farringdon and Blackfiars platforms extentions be completed?
Will the work at Borough Junction/London Bridge go ahead?

So will we end up with the same general pattern of Thameslink service at the moment, but with longer trains?

And just to complicate things, there's talk of ending the FCC franchise and nationalising it East Coast train style.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think FCC will (or ever was likely to) lose its franchise. The Government wants to sound tough, and talk up investment like HS2, and anything else will be kept quiet until it wins the election.

Not that Labour will win of course.

 

[jopsuk]

Faringdon and Blackfriars will be completed- to not finish them now would leave them both looking like permanent building sites.

As a certain blog pointed out yesterday, there's no political capital to be made in the next few months for the government for actually sorting out Thameslink, as the vast majority of people affeced are in parliamentary seats that are already Tory.

 

[Aictos]

I don't think FCC will (or ever was likely to) lose its franchise. The Government wants to sound tough, and talk up investment like HS2, and anything else will be kept quiet until it wins the election.

Not that Labour will win of course.

Try explaining that to staff, most seem to have built up their hopes so high, they're practically will be heart broken when they realise their dreams of full renationalisation is just that.

Although I quite like the idea of one company as it were back 20 odd years ago but to be realistic, it will never happen.

Pity so many live in a dream world.

 

[Metroland]

Dreams of renationalisation eh?

Does that include the same rates of pay: Drivers on £200 per week, same as Grade E signalmen, booking clerks and guards on £130 a week. Wages so low, recruitment of staff was practically impossible in some areas.

The only political party the supports renationalisation is the Green party. But at least with the Greens you could bet some investment would go in. With all the other parties, you can bet that railways would come somewhere below health, education, defence, new knickers for the over 60s in Wolverhampton, wormery scrappage schemes, and grass blade painting classes in Basingstoke.

Railway staff and rail enthusiasts would be a lot better off being positive about the railways, instead of running them down at every opportunity.

 

[Aictos]

Dreams of renationalisation eh?

Indeed.

Railway staff and rail enthusiasts would be a lot better off being positive about the railways, instead of running them down at every opportunity.

I do hope that wasn't aimed at me, I enjoy the railways and much prefer to use a train to get from A to B then some bus which is why I detest the rail replacement services so much.

It's also why I oppose such idiotic schemes such as busways and the rowing lake at Sandy, the rowing lake could easily be located elsewhere in the area.

It's not my fault if I try to see a more realistic picture is it?

 

[Metroland]

Defiantly not aimed at you. A general observation that has not been just noted by myself about the chicken little attitude from a significant minority of staff and enthusiasts who do little to inspire confidence. Possibly one reason why the railways are considered a joke. If you can't be positive, expect nobody else to be either.

 

[Aictos]

Very true indeed, I'm just glad I've got a decent job which combines my love of the railway with my job.

 

[yorksrob]

Railway staff and rail enthusiasts would be a lot better off being positive about the railways, instead of running them down at every opportunity.

Does that include those who believe that the railways do a good job (as they always have) but who don't believe that the privatised system - which relies on fragmenting the network to create profitable areas, is a sustainable way of running the railway?

 

[Metroland]

No, not if they are well thought out, preferably with supporting evidence.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I've thought long and hard about the arguments I've put forward on other threads although it's not for me to decide how well thought out they are. As for supporting evidence, I'm afraid I can't provide any - other than the record of BR, and the majority of railway networks in Europe.

Come to think of it - I wonder what happened to all of that supporting evidence demonstrating how you can hive off the profitable areas of a loss making industry without having a detrimental effect on the funding of the whole, that must have been provided when the breakup of the railway was originally "planned". Perhaps they couldn't fit it on the back of the fag packet lol.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Does that include those who believe that the railways do a good job (as they always have) but who don't believe that the privatised system - which relies on fragmenting the network to create profitable areas, is a sustainable way of running the railway?

I have many gripes with the way railways have been privatised and run now. My biggest gripe is the loss of a unified passenger service. You have to contend with a multitude of brand names and web sites. Other European countries provide national products: Spain has AVE, France has got TGV and Germany the ICE. We used to have InterCity.

There's nothing to stop a gradual reversion to a national product. Network Rail is nationalised in all but name. As each of the rail franchise expires, it could could revert to government ownership.

If the government insists on some form of private involvement, there's a model for running the trains in this way. Look at London Buses. By no means perfect, I think it's a better way of a public management of a public transport. London buses are all privately owned, TfL gives money to private contractors to run the service. And TfL sets and collect fares. And maintains a public brand.

Railways could be run in the same way. Each route could be contracted out. For good or for bad, DfT would set the fares and collect the revenue. And just give money to the contractor to run the trains.

 

[yorksrob]

I have many gripes with the way railways have been privatised and run now. My biggest gripe is the loss of a unified passenger service. You have to contend with a multitude of brand names and web sites. Other European countries provide national products: Spain has AVE, France has got TGV and Germany the ICE. We used to have InterCity.

There's nothing to stop a gradual reversion to a national product. Network Rail is nationalised in all but name. As each of the rail franchise expires, it could could revert to government ownership.

If the government insists on some form of private involvement, there's a model for running the trains in this way. Look at London Buses. By no means perfect, I think it's a better way of a public management of a public transport. London buses are all privately owned, TfL gives money to private contractors to run the service. And TfL sets and collect fares. And maintains a public brand.

Railways could be run in the same way. Each route could be contracted out. For good or for bad, DfT would set the fares and collect the revenue. And just give money to the contractor to run the trains.

Indeed, although I think your first option of gradually recreating BR (IMO preferably in the form of the business sectors) is definately better as it did have a certain amount of autonomy in matters of planning and day-to-day running.

 

[LMS6202]

This only makes me more convinced that the ELL scheme should have connected with the GN at Moorgate. It would have been a boon and relieved the pressure on Thameslink by giving an alternative north south cross London path.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they had set up the privatisation in the same way as Japan Rail then it MIGHT have been better. What we go was a dogs dinner.