New Idea for Sutton Loop Services

[devon_belle]

Isn't that what was originally planned anyway when the loop service was created?

In which case I would imagine it was modelled and found to be workable?

I have absolutely no idea – just asking out of curiosity having only ever used the line in the last couple of years.

 

[NCT]

I suspect the Sutton Loop is way down the priority line. Some of the 8-car 700s are still tied up interworking with the 387s on GN, then there's the 379 introduction and grand reshuffle which is eating up resources, and GTR don't have enough drivers.

If there's any desire to improve London suburban service levels, then I suspect the Moorgates and Norbury routes would take priority.

While I expect 4tph Sutton West Loop (in particular) to have a strong demand response as people switch from the 164 + Northern Line, standard rail modelling tool won't pick that up.

TfL has its hands full and I doubt the Sutton Loop is TfL's lobbying priority at the moment.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why can’t this be reversed or at least reviewed now? We’ve had several changes in government and at NR.

Because the units are going to Rainham instead…

 

[cle]

Because the units are going to Rainham instead…

If there isn't a big political hold-out any more.

So that in theory could also be reversed (knowing the Rainham service is also not popular and a black sheep in its world) ?

ie. if that returned to being a Greenwich loop service, and something else was extended out from Dartford to cover the Rainham service east of there? Or just run Cannon St - Rainham. Slow as anything but more 2-3 local services in utility anyway, esp with Abbey Wood now.

 

[Bald Rick]

If there isn't a big political hold-out any more.

So that in theory could also be reversed (knowing the Rainham service is also not popular and a black sheep in its world) ?

ie. if that returned to being a Greenwich loop service, and something else was extended out from Dartford to cover the Rainham service east of there? Or just run Cannon St - Rainham. Slow as anything but more 2-3 local services in utility anyway, esp with Abbey Wood now.

Not enough units for that.

 

[cle]

So we have a poor pattern on the Sutton loop, because of an MP. But now its irreversible because those units are sent on an even stupider decision mission. And to correct that has no units, so therefore we perpetuate something which is fairly universally seen as a bad move?

And the 800s would be far better used.

I do like your realism mostly but this feels like apologism. SE will have new units soon enough. And if Hayes went Bakerloo, even more paths and units to go around.

But ideally Sutton could be fixed sooner.

 

[OneOfThe48]

so therefore we perpetuate something which is fairly universally seen as a bad move?

Though of course, not seen as a bad move by those who wanted to retain their Thameslink Core services and, as we know, people do not like changing trains

 

[NCT]

Though of course, not seen as a bad move by those who wanted to retain their Thameslink Core services and, as we know, people do not like changing trains

So now those people are stuck with changing between the 164 and the Northern line.

So we have a poor pattern on the Sutton loop, because of an MP. But now its irreversible because those units are sent on an even stupider decision mission. And to correct that has no units, so therefore we perpetuate something which is fairly universally seen as a bad move?

And the 800s would be far better used.

I do like your realism mostly but this feels like apologism. SE will have new units soon enough. And if Hayes went Bakerloo, even more paths and units to go around.

But ideally Sutton could be fixed sooner.

The railway is living a bit hand-to-mouth at the moment. GTR's own Class 379 introduction is late; Southeastern is working with insufficient numbers of clapped out units. TfL is grappling with deteriorating rolling stock / not enough drivers / trying to keep BLE alive. Sutton Loop has always been a Cinderella line - the Thameslink programme gave it one bite at the cherry before politics torpedoed it - it's gone back to somewhere nobody ever cares about.

The railway in in a state where it's making short-term decisions one year at a time, when most projects have far longer lifecycles. In the franchise days you signed a franchise agreement and left the TOC to meet their obligations even if it meant losing their own money (to an extent). Bidders would propose whole-sale rolling stock procurements - yes that's sometimes led to surpluses but we were never counting individual units. Now we are just drifting, with the DfT micro-managing inter-TOC cascades of sub fleets within sub fleets. My fear is GBR will just perpetuate that drift.

 

[Jaydubya]

The Sutton/Wimbledon loop is really about providing a decent turn up and go service for the likes of Streatham, Tulse Hill, Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction into the city and Farringdon and beyond. It does that well almost too well given the overcrowding in the morning peak. It is just operationally convenient to send them round the Sutton Loop. In times past (pre Thameslink) other patterns were run looping back to another London termini. And there was a plan pre Covid to run an additional 2tph from London Bridge to Blackfriars via Tulse Hill (twice) to provider further capacity

 

[cle]

The Sutton/Wimbledon loop is really about providing a decent turn up and go service for the likes of Streatham, Tulse Hill, Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction into the city and Farringdon and beyond. It does that well almost too well given the overcrowding in the morning peak. It is just operationally convenient to send them round the Sutton Loop. In times past (pre Thameslink) other patterns were run looping back to another London termini. And there was a plan pre Covid to run an additional 2tph from London Bridge to Blackfriars via Tulse Hill (twice) to provider further capacity

I'm sure the users below Streatham might object, but I take your point. Wimbledon is obviously well served, Tooting has the Northern line, the Hackbridge stations have fast Victoria service, and the sub-Wimbledon stations are dead - and either bus to Wimbedon/Morden, or use the Worcester Park line.

I remember the London Bridge peak services too. I think if those came back (to Blackfriars) - it might be a good way to ease the change in. Maybe then swap out 2tph to the bays, and so on.

And redirect 1x St Albans pair to Kent House or so. Are those platforms used much for passing?

 

[Recessio]

Though of course, not seen as a bad move by those who wanted to retain their Thameslink Core services and, as we know, people do not like changing trains

I must admit this baffles me, as a resident on the line (West Sutton) who commutes to St Pancras, I'd still rather have 4tph and change at Blackfriars than 2tph through the core. At the moment if a train is cancelled or I just miss it, that 29 minutes wait to the next one is far more inconvenient than a change at Blackfriars would be

But I guess maybe I'm unusual then in preferring better frequency over direct route?

 

[NCT]

But I guess maybe I'm unusual then in preferring better frequency over direct route?

I don't have hard evidence to back this up, but I suspect you are part of the silent majority.

I do know however that DfT and TfL use very different interchange penalties in their modelling - TfL's modelling would almost certainly say 4tph with a change is better than 2tph direct (even applying the higher National Rail interchange penalty), whereas DfT's modelling using the higher PDFH (Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook) interchange penalty may well favour direct routing (or make the choice less clear cut) - though crowding may tip things slightly. TfL's all-mode modelling is likely to pick up the route switch from Northern line impact and therefore Northern line crowding relief much better than DfT's single mode modelling which doesn't acknowledge the existence of TfL's non-rail network.

As it's a DfT route with DfT (Treasury) taking the ultimate financial risk, DfT modelling wins. Or it's such a small route in a gigantic TSGN franchise nobody is going to fork out for the much more expensive TfL modelling suite for that piddly little line.

 

[Zomboid]

I suspect that had the Blackfriars service been allowed to happen, the users on the Sutton loop would have happily adapted within a couple of weeks and would be appreciating the enhanced frequency and not worried about the change to a highly frequent service through the core.

 

[andreading]

AIUI the logic of keeping the through service was based on the GLA and TFL's own planning in 2 respects. The first was that Sutton residents were being charged the Crossrail Precept and then told they, who would probably never benefit from Crossrail would would loose cross London services.

The second was that GLA/TFL stategic planning included Crossrail, Crossrail 2, the East London Line and acknowledged ThamesLink. An analysis of London Boroughs indicated that the opportunity to access jobs across London and for employers to recruit from across London improved the overall economy.

A review of services south of the Thames indicated that every Borough would have access to cross-London services including CrossRail, CrossRail2, East London, North London, West London, District, Metropolitan, Northern, Central and the other underground lines. Essentially Sutton would be the only borough to loose cross
London services.

I would support 4 trains per hour and not that the slow west side of the loop means that at every station north of Streatham it looks like 4 trains per hour and with zonal fares passengers could go either way round. I also note that even Nation Rail doesn't show a direct train from West Sutton to Hackbridge but everyone knows its the same train.

It seems to me there are 3 options for the west side of the loop to get 4tph.
1) One could extend the either the Sutton terminators or East London Line service to Wimbledon
2) Run all TL trains via Hackbridge and back to Blackfriars and
3) Add the extra 2 trains south of Blackfriars in the gap on the same loop service but avoiding conflict at Blackfriars

Options 2 and 3 mean that passengers on the west side would only have a 7.5minute wait on any platform to continue there journey if on a Blackfriars terminator


Whatever is done the stations on the west side need proper level access.

I hope

 

[cle]

I can’t really see the ELL getting there. I think East Croydon is far more likely if changes happened at the southern end.

I wish the Norwood Junction p7 project would come back, simple but very helpful for the local services.

I suspect that had the Blackfriars service been allowed to happen, the users on the Sutton loop would have happily adapted within a couple of weeks and would be appreciating the enhanced frequency and not worried about the change to a highly frequent service through the core.

It’s just like the NLL/WLL increases. They began as more shuttles between Clapham and Willesden, or Stratford and Camden - some Stratford-Willesden too, and gradually extended as that became possible.

But that incremental frequency, even if not uniform, was freedom. The ability to get ‘somewhere’ with onward connections. In this case, both Elephant and Blackfriars have options. And Blackfriars is walkable for many jobs. Herne and Tulse Hills give other connections too, so it would still be useful. And of course, getting to Wimbledon from the West loop. Ostensibly 3 tube frequency lines!

 

[BranstonJnc]

If someone spends the money, procures the new trams, and runs the Wimbledon - Sutton section as a Tramlink service, the provision of the quarter-hourly service to Wimbledon just over the bit to Haydons Road would be easy...