Remaining Great Northern services post Thameslink to be rolled into London Overground and LNER?

[mmh]

To add the Thameslink core would be confusing as that splits both north of St Pancras and South of Blackfriars. So do they also include London Bridge? Then why not Elephant and Castle, - or might as well go to East Croydon.

Thameslink was on the tube map for years, marked between Kentish Town and Moorgate, Elephant and Castle and London Bridge.

I thought it lasted on there longer, but it looks like it (and the North London Line and Northern City Line to Moorgate) disappeared from the map in 1999.

This map from May 1999 has it: http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps/tube99.jpg
This one from December 1999 doesn't: http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps/tube99-2.jpg

(Maps taken from an archive of some at http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html )

Part of the reasoning behind the Thameslink core frequency and train design (fewer seats, more standing, auto opening doors) is given that it's expected to provide relief to the northern line so that would make it seem like it'd be sensible to include it.

Although the December 1999 map was pre-TFL it was probably the last and perhaps the first under TFL-like thinking, as TFL was planned from 1999 and officially formed in 2000, so perhaps that gives weight to the idea that TFL are a little self-obsessed.

I really did think Thameslink was on the tube map more recently than that, but a quick search hasn't found a map with it on. Hmm...

EDIT: I've found one from 2010 and there aren't any National Rail lines on it, so it doesn't look like Thameslink was removed because of the upgrade work, it seems to long pre-date it.

 

[notverydeep]

At the time, I think Amersham boasted one of the lowest ratios of off-peak demand relative to the peak on the whole of LU - something like a 90% dropoff for the off-peak.

I wouldn’t regard the Met to Amersham as a good track record at all.

Withdrawal of all but peak fast services in order to increase stops at stations like Pinner and Northwick Park, which just happen to be in London.

There used to be 6tph to Amersham (4 Met/2 Chiltern) with a halfhourly shuttle to Chesham to Chalfont, formed of a 4 car A Stock train.

With the impending full rollout of S8 trains which are formed of fixed 8 car trains and the bay at Chalfont only taking 4 Car, a decision was taken to divert 2 of the Amersham trains to Chesham. So in effect the Amersham services were cut back.

Looking at the latest Rolling Origin and Destination Survey published on TfL opendata, only 4.5% of weekday off peak Metropolitan line journeys use any part of the line north of Moor Park towards Watford, Amersham or Chesham. 65% of weekday journeys that use this part of the Metropolitan line are at peak times, suggesting off peak travel has increased since the 1990s Crossrail proposal.

All of the stations north of Moor Park except Chesham do get at least 4 trains per hour (tph) off peak either Metropolitan or Chiltern Railways services. The morning peak service from Amersham consists of 10 Metropolitan line and 10 Chiltern Railways services over the three hours from 0700 to 1000 (an average of 6.6 tph for the combined service).

 

[LeeLivery]

Numerous complaints about the rolling stock being inadequate. Just like the new GN Moorgate stock complaints really.

But are there any complaints about the principle of TfL running services out that far? Or is it just the stock that people don't like? I'm not a fan of the seating on the 345s myself; I actually find them more uncomfortable than the 700s. That said, people in Reading, Twyford and Maidenhead will mostly still use GWR anyway.

Additions to the TfL tube map are where those lines are completely under TfL's control to the limit of services, e.g. the most far-flung lines such as Shenfield, Cheshunt, Watford Junction, and Amersham/Chesham (historic) are well outside TfL's primary brief which only covers the GLA. When Crossrail opens fully, the line to Reading will probably be added as would the Hayes branch if it gets a Bakerloo service.
To add the Thameslink core would be confusing as that splits both north of St Pancras and South of Blackfriars. So do they also include London Bridge? Then why not Elephant and Castle, - or might as well go to East Croydon. Then in the north there's Finsbury Park & West Hampstead. If that's done they might as well add Stratford to Tottenham Hale, Stratford International to St Pancras, London Bridge to Lewisham and Abbey Wood, Waterloo to Richmond & Wimbledon, and Victoria to Balham (National Rail). Once the map is extended beyond TfL's rail services there would be constant pleading of cases for any of these.
It's true that Thameslink is one of the busiest lines in the country but most of that is into the core from outside (and vice versa), principally commuter traffic with a reduced flow off-peak. So most of those passengers either know central London rail services like the back of their hand or have already accessed the information at their stations of origin (NR). Despite that, I've not noticed the lack of the TfL & National Rail maps, especially in Zone 1.

As said above, the core was on the map before. If it was placed on the map today, I'd say West Hampstead and Finsbury Park to Peckham Rye and East Croydon. Only one station would actually need be added to the map - City Thameslink. Showing the branch to Abbey Wood might be pushing it but there's reasonable merit to it.

 

[Joe Paxton]

EDIT: I've found one from 2010 and there aren't any National Rail lines on it, so it doesn't look like Thameslink was removed because of the upgrade work, it seems to long pre-date it.

Thameslink was struggling with passenger numbers long ago! Hence the need for Thameslink 2000, ahem, I mean the Thameslink Programme.

Having the Thameslink core on the Tube map just probably wasn't helping matters. Also worth bearing in mind that phase 2 of the CTRL (HS1) was on the cards - though this was also itself delayed - and it involved the Thameslink core being closed for nine months (in the end during 2004-05) for reconstruction of St Pancras station.

Encouraging passengers to use an already crowded service that was going to close completely in the near future was likely seen as being less than ideal.

 

[Failed Unit]

Your option 1 needs a different ticket to the other 2 surely?

That is a grey area. At the moment it isn’t valid on Thameslink but it is on London Underground. I am sure the experts will enlighten me. But I guess my option then is train to st Pancras tube to Moorgate. Which we know is valid.

 

[Mikey C]

TfL running trains out to Stevenage may annoy some, but I doubt most will care. Has there been any complaints to about Reading?



Fair enough and I wasn't chucking Thameslink at you, I was using it as an example. TfL's finances are struggling, it would not surprise me if it was taken out of their hands by the government and developed differently. Like HS2, it doesn't have to be solely with NR.



I've never once heard anyone refer to the DLR, Trams or Cable Car as the tube and I only ever hear BBC London annoyingly refer to LO as the tube but no one else. The problem with the clutter argument is that as soon as TfL gets its hands on NR routes, it puts it on the tube map - leading to the cluttered mess it is now and will no doubt continue doing it. Thameslink is one of the busiest lines in the country and is left off because they don't run it while the 4tph Enfield & Cheshunt line is on there. That isn't putting the interests of passengers first. Furthermore, to find a printed copy of the Rail & Tube map to take with you at a TfL station is like gold dust - even at stations which are also served by other TOCs, they only push the tube map which for my station doesn't show half of the services. TfL claims they want an integrated transport network in London but they are purposely not trying to integrate non-TfL NR lines and pretending the only way to do it is by devolution. The West Midlands has proven an integrated transport network does not need to be run by one operator.

Yes it's crazy that a tourist on the South Bank looking at the pocket Tube Map would not be informed about the high intensity service operating now to St Pancras from Blackfriars or London Bridge, but would instead know all about Tramlink or the trains to Cheshunt.

 

[Bald Rick]

That and it's presence on a tube map must have done wonders for demand..

Particularly for all those travelling from Richmond to Clapham Junction

 

[Class 170101]

That suits the Mayor, because it wins him some votes in the Borough of Enfield - and he doesn't care if he's upset the Hertfordshire folk, because they are not within his remit.

Perhaps not directly however you can be sure if he upsets people outside the London boundary his mational political 'stablemates' (currently Corbyn) won't thank him for it.

 

[Envy123]

Funnily enough, when I once told a friend of mine how I was getting home from Old Street when he asked, I said I'll be using the NCL direct to New Southgate. He was surprised and asked "Wait, Old Street has National Rail?".

I mean, Northern Line trains do announce that fact.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Mod Note: Post #1 split from this thread.

Interesting to note in the Ministerial statement this juicy element about possible changes to Great Northern services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/east-coast-rail-update


I imagine this may please some forum members and enrage others given the apparent dislike of TfL having responsibility for National Rail services.

For me, what makes perfect sense is Thameslink not running a Welwyn Garden City service and instead running the peak Baldock/Royston services with 8/700s; meaning LNER would only need 387s based at Peterborough and Kings Lynn.

As there is already discussion around the surplus 800s, these could be deployed on the Kings Lynn route or the ‘very fast’ services from Huntingdon and St Neots could use them starting back from Newark of a peak time. Anything, in that respect, is possible.

You wouldn’t need any 365s and could then just have 387s doing 110mph going up and down.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

So we're about to endure the pain and suffering associated with DfT's crazy plan to stuff the Great Northern services through the Thameslink core and Grayling suddenly announces that the TSGN franchise is to be split in 2021.

Do these buffoons have no self-awareness? As per OxtedSignaller's post above, the whole thing needs to be downsized and recast in a way that benefits passengers, not the operators. I agree that GN Moorgate and Metro services should go to LO, but why not do the same with Wimbledon/Sutton services and return to the "terminate in the bay platforms at Blackfriars" plan. There's no logical reason why any services going any further north than West Hampstead should penetrate the core.

The ludicrous situation under the new timetable means that passengers will be forced to change trains at Blackfriars to complete their northbound journeys whilst Wimbledon Loop services block up the core just because the local Wimbledon MP kicked up a fuss as a vote-winner.

Let's get the railways out of the control of Government and have them operated and managed by professional railway people. But more importantly, let's have them run for the benefit of the passengers.

Perhaps in a year we will have worked out that the entire Thameslink timetable and route plan as set out by the idiot civil servants in Westminster is a load of tosh and needs to be written by real railwaymen and women that can deliver a logical timetable...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

This would be the first LO takeover that didn't require an investment in new stock. That said, the deep-level stations between Moorgate and Drayton Park are *desperately* in need of sprucing up, which LO tends to be quite good at. Not bank-breaking, but neither would be it be a minimal amount of investment.

And assuming someone finally does something with the line signalling, and even does some ‘step up’ driving at Moorgate, you might be able to get a train down the hole every 3.75 minutes (aka 16tph) and thus have up to 6tph to Welwyn and 10tph to Gordon Hill and Hertford. No need for a Thameslink Welwyn then; although if desperate just run a half-hourly train into KGX to make the extra capacity.

 

[higthomas]

On the tube map front, I basically think the tube map is fairly redundant. What we should do is just have the London rail map widely available as the 'standard' map, get rid of the tube map, and have tube map size 'central London' maps for tourists which simply show a central London extract of the larger London rail one.

 

[plcd1]

I think there are mechanisms such as memoranda of understanding between the DfT and TfL regarding services outside the GLA area, which mean that TfL are obliged to provide a proper level of service.

The hypothetical scenario whereby TfL ignores anywhere outside Greater London would quickly result in the Mayor and TfL receiving all sorts of heat from DfT and beyond - and there are all sorts of levers that central government could pull to apply pressure to the Mayor and TfL, up to and including rescinding the devolution of such services.

I appreciate the concern, but the reality is that these nightmare scenarios aren't going to happen. (Indeed experience shows that they will end up with an improved service.)

Precisely this. TfL taking over as funding and specification authority for National Rail services does not give them carte blanche. They are constrained by whatever the Secretary of State requires in terms of minimum service levels. They are constrained by existing rules on fares and ticketing matters. They are further constrained by whatever the Dft agrees with other franchisees that may run beside or over the same tracks as TfL contracted services. They are constrained by the rules governing track access etc.

Any proposed switch of the control of the GN Inners is 3-4 years away. A lot could happen in that time affecting GN / TLink services as well as TfL. Perhaps I've lived in London too long but I really struggle with the views expressed about TfL by some forum members. The vehemence of the reaction seems completely out of step with the reality of day to day operation and tends to focus on minutiae about maps or "excessive" staffing rather than the fundamentals. TfL are not perfect but then, based on the thousands of posts here, neither are any of the TOCs. None of them seem to be able to do anything right. I can't see how TfL and their selected contractor could be any worse than GTR given the endless complaints about that company.

 

[Fred26]

And assuming someone finally does something with the line signalling, and even does some ‘step up’ driving at Moorgate, you might be able to get a train down the hole every 3.75 minutes (aka 16tph) and thus have up to 6tph to Welwyn and 10tph to Gordon Hill and Hertford. No need for a Thameslink Welwyn then; although if desperate just run a half-hourly train into KGX to make the extra capacity.

I think the biggest issue standing in the way of 16tph down the NCL is platform capacity at Moorgate. In the peaks those trains are packed arriving at Moorgate and, with its narrow platforms and exits grouped to one end, it takes time to clear and thus time before the trains can be dispatched safely. The amount of people alighting in the morning also makes it extremely difficult for the drivers to get to the other end quickly.
The easiest solution, at least to drivers swapping ends, would be to have an extra driver in place so that as soon as the train stops he can start setting up his cab. The first driver would then move to the next train and so on.
But like I say, unless there's a way of improving station capacity, with the trains only likely to get busier too (Crossrail opens in December), more than 12tph seems unlikely.

 

[morgainelive]

I personally will be glad to see the new timetable I do hope it sorts gn's services to Peterborough more cancellations today meaning slow trains only with 4 cars packed by Hitchin and yes less is surely better but who knows what chaos we shall see tomorrow

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I think the biggest issue standing in the way of 16tph down the NCL is platform capacity at Moorgate. In the peaks those trains are packed arriving at Moorgate and, with its narrow platforms and exits grouped to one end, it takes time to clear and thus time before the trains can be dispatched safely. The amount of people alighting in the morning also makes it extremely difficult for the drivers to get to the other end quickly.
The easiest solution, at least to drivers swapping ends, would be to have an extra driver in place so that as soon as the train stops he can start setting up his cab. The first driver would then move to the next train and so on.
But like I say, unless there's a way of improving station capacity, with the trains only likely to get busier too (Crossrail opens in December), more than 12tph seems unlikely.

As I said then, step up driving. With ATO overlaid on ETCS Level 2 it would be easy to get trains in and out again in a circa 3 minute dwell time.

 

[bramling]

As I said then, step up driving. With ATO overlaid on ETCS Level 2 it would be easy to get trains in and out again in a circa 3 minute dwell time.

Stepping back would help, but you still have the issue of slow runs in and out. Even with full ATP and ATO I can’t see that much scope for enhancing the run-in speed due to the total lack of over-run. Clearing the platform is also a major issue - perhaps more could be done to encourage people to change to the Northern Line at Old Street?

 

[317 forever]

More likely this arrangement would suit Grayling, taking the KX services into LNER would make the line more attractive financially and the Moorgate lines are too small to let separately.

I doubt any bets are being hedged on Labour losing the London mayoralty, I don't think the Tories have been less popular in London than at present for quite some time!

One scenario in which the Conservatives could win the London Mayor election is if people are sufficiently dismayed by cuts to bus services including the abolition of bus maps by Sadiq - and the Conservative candidate is Heidi Allen.

 

[317 forever]

Never mind all this, the London Overground strip map is going to be completely unfathomable if they add the Northern City line services!

On this diagram, West Croydon looks nearer to Euston than Liverpool Street does!

 

[ainsworth74]

perhaps more could be done to encourage people to change to the Northern Line at Old Street

Considering loading's on the Northern line I'm not sure you'll a) have many takers and b) it'll just move the problem elsewhere.

 

[317 forever]

The Metropolitan line is largely self-contained though (sharing with the Chiltern aside) and doesn't really provide any journey opportunities other than to London. I think it's hard to find many similar routes in the national rail network into London, so the two that crop up for Overground or Underground conversion are always the Northern City route or Lewisham - Hayes (as a user of the latter I'm strongly against the recurring proposals to use it for a Bakerloo Line extension)

Alternatively, maybe London Overground could be extended from New Cross to Hayes via Lewisham. More adventurously, I once thought the DLR could be extended from Lewisham to Hayes. However, I understand that the location of DLR and other platforms prevents an easy extension.

 

[317 forever]

As someone who's going to be visiting Enfield frequently in the near future, the biggest benefit I see would be them bringing fares in line with TFL standard ones. Currently an off-peak single from Oxford Circus to Enfield Chase is £4.90 compared to £3.10 to Enfield Town. Unfortunately Enfield Chase has the much better service, which is soon to be double that to Enfield Town.

Would it be any cheaper to split the ticket ie Oxford Circus - Finsbury Park - Enfield Chase?

 

[317 forever]

Funnily enough, when I once told a friend of mine how I was getting home from Old Street when he asked, I said I'll be using the NCL direct to New Southgate. He was surprised and asked "Wait, Old Street has National Rail?".

I mean, Northern Line trains do announce that fact.

Indeed, I remember Northern Line train announcements at Moorgate that we can change to National Rail services at Moorgate and Old Street - even on Saturdays when that line was closed.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Stepping back would help, but you still have the issue of slow runs in and out. Even with full ATP and ATO I can’t see that much scope for enhancing the run-in speed due to the total lack of over-run. Clearing the platform is also a major issue - perhaps more could be done to encourage people to change to the Northern Line at Old Street?

ETCS Level 2 will enable far more than 10mph on the way in. That is only there because of the Moorgate incident - the crossover is good for 15 or 20 from memory as I used to go over it enough times at the front...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Alternatively, maybe London Overground could be extended from New Cross to Hayes via Lewisham. More adventurously, I once thought the DLR could be extended from Lewisham to Hayes. However, I understand that the location of DLR and other platforms prevents an easy extension.

Last thing you need is a flat junction at New Cross and piddly little 5 car units going up and down...

Hayes either needs a solid peak 8tph (here comes that ‘digital railway’ tat) with 12 car trains or at least a 7-8 minutely Bakerloo line service. No exceptions / excuses.

 

[jon0844]

And assuming someone finally does something with the line signalling, and even does some ‘step up’ driving at Moorgate, you might be able to get a train down the hole every 3.75 minutes (aka 16tph) and thus have up to 6tph to Welwyn and 10tph to Gordon Hill and Hertford. No need for a Thameslink Welwyn then; although if desperate just run a half-hourly train into KGX to make the extra capacity.

WGC then becomes the problem area. It's already a high-risk station due to the potential to cause chaos during disruption. If a train in Moorgate has a problem, trains can be diverted, or stops missed. That's all there is to mess up.

At WGC, especially with the shut downs and shunts, you've got various conflicts and scope for delays to many other services. There would need to be proper planning to go beyond 4 trains per hour.

If there was a way to bring trains into platform 1 at WGC to turn around, without the current in to platform 3/4, shut down, driver changes end, goes over the flyover, changes end, comes baqc into 1, changes end to start the next service.. then it might be more feasible. A driver is expected to take around 4 minutes to change end, and that's before comfort breaks, getting water etc.

You could have a driver at each end, but that's not going to happen (it does on a couple of services where the turnaround is tight, but that's it).

 

[Fred26]

As I said then, step up driving. With ATO overlaid on ETCS Level 2 it would be easy to get trains in and out again in a circa 3 minute dwell time.

I've no idea what 'step up driving' is.

 

[transmanche]

The easiest solution, at least to drivers swapping ends, would be to have an extra driver in place so that as soon as the train stops he can start setting up his cab. The first driver would then move to the next train and so on.

I've no idea what 'step up driving' is.

The process you described is known as 'stepping back' (at least in LU parlance, anyway) as each driver is 'stepping back' one train at the terminus. IIRC on the Waterloo & City line at peak times, drivers may even step back two trains.

 

[Fred26]

Oh I see. Yeah, cool, good idea, lol.
More seriously, unless something can be done about the platform capacity I can't see how more than 12tph can be achieved safely.