London RER-Style Network Under TfL/GBR?

[Sorcerer]

This was an idea I had recently and I wanted to bring it up for discussion. For those not in the know, the Paris RER (Réseau Express Régional meaning Regional Express Network) serves as a big major part of Paris's public transport network complimenting the Metro by running as a hybrid between commuter rail in the surrounding regions of Paris, and as a rapid transit network in the city centre running between major hubs and skipping small stops in-between. It's not too dissimilar to how the Elizabeth Line runs from east to west via Central London where it serves as an express route complimenting the Central Line by running between major hub stations in the core.

With the railways due to undergo restructuring and reform in which we'll get Great British Railways, could an idea for a similar style network in London be a possibility? The idea I had was to have Thameslink and a few other commuter services in London along with the Elizabeth Line being absorbed into a new regional express network brand operated jointly by TfL and GBR (similar to how the RER is jointly owned by RATP - the Paris equivalent of TfL - and SNCF), with different routes being given different line names, maybe with a few different liveries but preferably a single one to be consistent with the Underground and Overground networks.

Doing this could enable closer integration of services and ticketing as well as providing simplicity for London travellers. GBR meanwhile would still operate intercity and some other longer distance services out of London while jointly-owning/operating the new RER style network with TfL that could later including Crossrail 2 routes should that line ever come to fruition. The Underground and Overground networks would remain as they are under TfL. It seems like a neat idea but I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this idea? How would you maybe do it differently? I'd love to hear your thoughts below.

 

[merseydrew]

I think this will ultimately happen, given the renaming of Overground lines to have their own unique identity, I believe that the Elizabeth Line was named such in preparation for integration into the Thameslink network/CrossRail 2.

However, as it stands Thameslink and Elizabeth Line are completely separate entities, and operate using entirely different infrastructure (e.g Thameslink DC power supply, signalling etc), and there has been no indication (as far as i know) from DFT, TFL, GTR or councils in Herts, Berks, Cambs, Kent, Sussex, Beds that this is going to happen in the near future.

Additionally, given Thameslink's vast reach outside of Greater London, I think there would be many disputes relating to revenue and funding between the Greater London Authority and surrounding county/district councils, as TFL would be reluctant to bear the financial responsibility for services which operate far outside of it's boundaries

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I hope not, Thameslink, Crossrail and the Overground are 3 different things with their own strong branding. Ok, the Thameslink branding has been severely dumbed down ever since it got rolled into errr…First Capital Connect, but it’s still a great brand name.

 

[stuu]

Some sort of integrated Network for the South East? Rings a bell

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder how many times this idea has this been proposed now? It basically boils down to TFL becoming partially responsible for Thameslink, and has appeared in these forums on and off for years. The ‘common fares‘ issue is basically happening with ‘project Oval’ - and look how people come up with reasons why that would cause problems, such as removing Route Thameslink fares to Brighto…

 

[stevieinselby]

Is the branding and ownership more relevant than the service itself?

We already have the bones of the service, with Thameslink and Crossrail, and plans underdevelopment for Crossrail 2 – these effectively perform the same function as RER, being cross-city outer suburban services with a high frequency service through the core. Would it be great to have more services like this? Yes, obviously ... but realistically it's unlikely we will get many more such lines in the short- or even medium-term, given the lead times we have seen on Crossrail and Crossrail 2.

Both Thameslink and Elizabeth Line are existing brands, although they operate quite different styles of service so wouldn't fit all that comfortably under the same brand. And how relevant would a London-related brand be when you get right out to Brighton, Peterborough or Rainham? If you wanted to expand the brand to include other suburban services that run to/from one of the zone 1 terminals then you're diluting the essence of the cross-city brand.

With the railways being renationalised, we should see a greater synergy between the services that are devolved to London and the other services that run as part of the national network, so ownership should become less of an issue in the future. What actual benefits would you envisage coming from TfL getting a stake in Thameslink?

 

[generalnerd]

I think this would work. You could have all the mainline commuter railways that also act as a metro (Elizabeth, Thameslink and Northern City) branded as part of the crossrail brand.

Each line would have the purple rounded but would feature a different name on the side of the train as the fleets will be separated (for example you’d have a Thameslink roundel and a Great Northern/northern city roundel)

 

[PTR 444]

I think this would work. You could have all the mainline commuter railways that also act as a metro (Elizabeth, Thameslink and Northern City) branded as part of the crossrail brand.

Each line would have the purple rounded but would feature a different name on the side of the train as the fleets will be separated (for example you’d have a Thameslink roundel and a Great Northern/northern city roundel)

I’d prefer the use of the name TfL Rail, implying that these are suburban railway services within the boundaries of London. Crossrail is too much associated with the Elizabeth Line for the name to work anywhere else.

 

[generalnerd]

I’d prefer the use of the name TfL Rail, implying that these are suburban railway services within the boundaries of London. Crossrail is too much associated with the Elizabeth Line for the name to work anywhere else.

I see your point.

My idea was for more of the London centric commuter services to become part of the TfL empire (not the regional services, just the commuter services that also form inner city metro services as well)

Some routes could go to the Overground but long distance should go to a GBR and TfL collaboration. Inner city routes should all go to the overground brand, whereas commuter/outer-suburban routes should be operated by GBR but branded with TfL colours and use TfL map styles, etc

So as to not confuse anybody, I don’t think all London commuter routes should be branded as TfL (LNWR shouldn’t as it barely stops in London) but that more local and stopping commuter routes should (the great northern routes, some SE routes and (potently controversially) the whole Thameslink network)

I also think that all the mainline terminals should be branded and operated by TfL with appropriate funding given to them for the job, but that is a different matter entirely.

 

[supervc-10]

I think using a common purple theme, and including Thameslink fully into the TfL fare structure on the appropriate routings, would be sensible. Especially through the core it should be used more like the Lizzie Line already is.

I don't think renaming it would be sensible - people already know it as Thameslink, but using that name on a purple roundel and integrating fully into the zonal fare structures (IIRC - and according to CityMapper too - you pay two fares if you transfer from current TfL services onto Thameslink with Oyster).

TBH though, I think all the London services should be properly integrated like this - why is it that if I take the Jubilee from where I live in Stratford over to Waterloo and then SWR to Clapham Junction I pay more than if I take the Jubilee round to the Northern and down to Clapham South for example?

 

[JonathanH]

Especially through the core it should be used more like the Lizzie Line already is.

It isn't nearly as useful for travel in London as the Elizabeth Line, as the places it links don't have such large flows.

I think using a common purple theme, and including Thameslink fully into the TfL fare structure on the appropriate routings, would be sensible.

It is already integrated into the TfL fare structure for journeys between West Hampstead Thameslink and London Bridge / Elephant & Castle.

 

[FlyingPotato]

This was an idea I had recently and I wanted to bring it up for discussion. For those not in the know, the Paris RER (Réseau Express Régional meaning Regional Express Network) serves as a big major part of Paris's public transport network complimenting the Metro by running as a hybrid between commuter rail in the surrounding regions of Paris, and as a rapid transit network in the city centre running between major hubs and skipping small stops in-between. It's not too dissimilar to how the Elizabeth Line runs from east to west via Central London where it serves as an express route complimenting the Central Line by running between major hub stations in the core.

With the railways due to undergo restructuring and reform in which we'll get Great British Railways, could an idea for a similar style network in London be a possibility? The idea I had was to have Thameslink and a few other commuter services in London along with the Elizabeth Line being absorbed into a new regional express network brand operated jointly by TfL and GBR (similar to how the RER is jointly owned by RATP - the Paris equivalent of TfL - and SNCF), with different routes being given different line names, maybe with a few different liveries but preferably a single one to be consistent with the Underground and Overground networks.

Doing this could enable closer integration of services and ticketing as well as providing simplicity for London travellers. GBR meanwhile would still operate intercity and some other longer distance services out of London while jointly-owning/operating the new RER style network with TfL that could later including Crossrail 2 routes should that line ever come to fruition. The Underground and Overground networks would remain as they are under TfL. It seems like a neat idea but I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this idea? How would you maybe do it differently? I'd love to hear your thoughts below.

I don't know if they should be joined as an RER equivalent. To me Thameslink feels more akin to the Regional Express services of Berlin that run between the likes of Frankfurt (Oder) and Brandenburg, they aren't part the S-Bahn even though they provide good connections within Berlin

Whereas the Elizabeth Line feels more like the S-Bahn or the RER

I think the Thameslink is too long to be a part of an RER style network

 

[JLH4AC]

TFL get increased oversight over at least parts of Thameslink, and GBR taking over the operation of the London Overground concession in 20026 and Elizabeth line concession in 2032 would be a good thing as it keeps revenue within the state operated system and it should increase local democratic control over rail services.

I think the Thameslink is too long to be a part of an RER style network

Both RER D and RER C lines are longer than the longest Thameslink service Peterborough to Horsham admittedly only by 3 miles in the case of the RER D.

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

It isn't nearly as useful for travel in London as the Elizabeth Line, as the places it links don't have such large flows.

The lack of utility within central London isn't so much to do with the destinations - Kings Cross and London Bridge are pretty big draws for example - but the speed. The Elizabeth Line is almost always the fastest route between two stations it connects.

Stratford to TCR: 13 min by Elizabeth or 20 min by Central
Liverpool St to Paddington: 15 min by Elizabeth or 23 min by Circle

Meanwhile Thameslink is at best equal speed to the tube equivalents, often slower.
E&C to St Pancras: 16 min Thameslink, 16 min Northern
London Bridge to West Hampstead: 23 mins Thameslink, 19 min Jubilee

Therefore the Elizabeth Line draws significant traffic from other modes for cross-centre journeys. Thameslink meanwhile doesn't have any attraction to change from alternative modes - only being attractive for national rail-to-national rail journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

Therefore the Elizabeth Line draws significant traffic from other modes for cross-centre journeys. Thameslink meanwhile doesn't have any attraction to change from alternative modes - only being attractive for national rail-to-national rail journeys.

Yes, that is fair comment, and worth noting when trying to compare the two.

 

[stevieinselby]

Meanwhile Thameslink is at best equal speed to the tube equivalents, often slower.
E&C to St Pancras: 16 min Thameslink, 16 min Northern
London Bridge to West Hampstead: 23 mins Thameslink, 19 min Jubilee

Blackfriars to Kings Cross St Pancras – 19 minutes on the Circle Line, 8 minutes on Thameslink

 

[renegademaster]

Northern
London Bridge to West Hampstead: 23 mins Thameslink, 19 min Jubilee

That 4 minutes is easily saved by avoiding the trek from the London Bridge national rail platforms down to the underground ones. Especially from the SouthEastern end.
Also keeps you off the Northern for trips into the city

 

[LLivery]

Meanwhile Thameslink is at best equal speed to the tube equivalents, often slower.
E&C to St Pancras: 16 min Thameslink, 16 min Northern
London Bridge to West Hampstead: 23 mins Thameslink, 19 min Jubilee

Therefore the Elizabeth Line draws significant traffic from other modes for cross-centre journeys. Thameslink meanwhile doesn't have any attraction to change from alternative modes - only being attractive for national rail-to-national rail journeys.

Apart from air con, toilets and much less overcrowding in the peaks. Overcrowding on the Jubilee line is horrendous during peak times these days.

 

[Transilien]

Stratford to TCR: 13 min by Elizabeth or 20 min by Central
Liverpool St to Paddington: 15 min by Elizabeth or 23 min by Circle

Meanwhile Thameslink is at best equal speed to the tube equivalents, often slower.
E&C to St Pancras: 16 min Thameslink, 16 min Northern
London Bridge to West Hampstead: 23 mins Thameslink, 19 min Jubilee

Thameslink is like the RER C as the both use old infrastructure in its core, resulting in slow journey times for both.

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

That 4 minutes is easily saved by avoiding the trek from the London Bridge national rail platforms down to the underground ones. Especially from the SouthEastern end.
Also keeps you off the Northern for trips into the city

But that's still only useful if you're already coming from National Rail - someone coming from the tube wouldn't switch to Thameslink here, and neither would most people making that journey as a standalone trip (point about comfort and aircon notwithstanding). The fares being separate doesn't help either.

Whereas the Elizabeth Line is typically the most attractive option for standalone journeys, and for passengers transferring from other TfL or National Rail services.

 

[generalnerd]

I was under the assumption that Thameslink fares were integrated in the underground ‘metro’ core section (along with London Bridge, E&C and maybe Finsbury Park)

the reply function didn’t work so excuse the image instead of a real reply

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

I was under the assumption that Thameslink fares were integrated in the underground ‘metro’ core section (along with London Bridge, E&C and maybe Finsbury Park)

the reply function didn’t work so excuse the image instead of a real reply

Huh, I think you're correct. https://oysterfares.com/information-pages/fares-guide-tables/

Not sure how I've never noticed that.

 

[Class15]

It isn't nearly as useful for travel in London as the Elizabeth Line, as the places it links don't have such large flows.

What exactly do you mean? Me and thousands of others use it every day!

 

[generalnerd]

What exactly do you mean? Me and thousands of others use it every day!

yeah it is very business heavy, it has a very specific ridership and if you’re not part of that or a rail enthusiast you’re very unlikely to use it as a visitor.

Although coincidentally me and my family member actually took a ride on it to get to a hotel from King’s Cross, but that’s the only time I’ve ever actually used it for non-train related reasons.

 

[Class15]

yeah it is very business heavy, it has a very specific ridership and if you’re not part of that or a rail enthusiast you’re very unlikely to use it as a visitor.

Although coincidentally me and my family member actually took a ride on it to get to a hotel from King’s Cross, but that’s the only time I’ve ever actually used it for non-train related reasons.

Apart from Heathrow, how is the Lizzie any different?

Also Thameslink operates trains with significantly more seats than the Lizzie. 12/8 cars of transverse seating compared to 9 cars of longitudinal.

 

[stevieinselby]

Apart from Heathrow, how is the Lizzie any different?

Also Thameslink operates trains with significantly more seats than the Lizzie. 12/8 cars of transverse seating compared to 9 cars of longitudinal.

I think the point is that Thameslink primarily gets people in and out of London from outlying suburbs and the surrounding home counties, but is less used for short journeys within central London – because its journey through the core is slow. Whereas the Elizabeth Line is heavily used for journeys within zones 1 and 2, as it is much quicker (and more pleasant) than the parallel Central Line and subsurface lines.

For example – when I go down to see my parents by train, I arrive into Kings Cross and I can get a direct Thameslink train from St Pancras out to where they live in Surrey, and that's really convenient and a great service. But if they lived in, let's say, Sevenoaks, that's no longer the case, I'm going to have to change twice – would I use a Thameslink train to get to London Bridge for my onward connection, or would I use the faster and more frequent Northern Line? Very likely the latter. On the other hand, someone going from Bristol to Chelmsford would without a doubt use the Elizabeth Line for their cross-London journey from Paddington to Liverpool Street in preference to the Circle/Hammersmith & City.

 

[renegademaster]

I think the point is that Thameslink primarily gets people in and out of London from outlying suburbs and the surrounding home counties, but is less used for short journeys within central London – because its journey through the core is slow. Whereas the Elizabeth Line is heavily used for journeys within zones 1 and 2, as it is much quicker (and more pleasant) than the parallel Central Line and subsurface lines.

For example – when I go down to see my parents by train, I arrive into Kings Cross and I can get a direct Thameslink train from St Pancras out to where they live in Surrey, and that's really convenient and a great service. But if they lived in, let's say, Sevenoaks, that's no longer the case, I'm going to have to change twice – would I use a Thameslink train to get to London Bridge for my onward connection, or would I use the faster and more frequent Northern Line? Very likely the latter. On the other hand, someone going from Bristol to Chelmsford would without a doubt use the Elizabeth Line for their cross-London journey from Paddington to Liverpool Street in preference to the Circle/Hammersmith & City.

In your Sevenoaks example it would only have to go a few platforms over from Thameslink London Bridge platforms to thr the Southeastern ones. Taking the Northern line you would have to take the trek up from the underground station eliminating any time savings.

 

[generalnerd]

Apart from Heathrow, how is the Lizzie any different?

Also Thameslink operates trains with significantly more seats than the Lizzie. 12/8 cars of transverse seating compared to 9 cars of longitudinal.

Lizzie connects many key parts of the city to other key parts of the city. Its city tunnel is also longer meaning more people will inevitably ride, as represented by it having longitudinal seats.

Thameslink has more seats as it accommodates people travelling for longer distances for a commute, whereas the Elizabeth line features longitudinal seats as it’s more likely to have more passengers onboard for short distances, meaning they don’t need to sit.