Should TfL take over and rename Thameslink?

[JonathanH]

Tattenham Corner, Caterham and Epsom Downs are all 8-carriage branches. Could there ever be demand for 12-carriage trains on any of these lines? If demand on the core increases, TL will have to become all 12-car, so any thoughts about where its branches should go should focus on where an all 12-car TL would make sense, rather than trying to make its extent match the London boundary so that TfL can take it over.

Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner can accommodate 10-car trains (but the platforms at intermediate stations on the Tattenham branch are short)

However, none of these routes need 12-car trains to the Core. Moreover, there doesn't appear to be capacity on the slow lines through East Croydon to run separate services to Caterham and Tattenham Corner (which is why Thameslink didn't take over these routes) although the removal of the Victoria service does help in that regard. There will never be 12-car demand on these three routes of course (but it is perhaps more about capacity between East / West Croydon and the core than the branches).

 

[CBlue]

I never really understood all this desire to mess around with Thameslink, much like some always want to muck about with the GN routes - stuff like handing Cambridge and Kings Lynn fasts to LNER (because "intercity")

Only a few months ago we had someone refusing to admit that their idea of running long distance expresses from Scotland to Brighton via the core was nuts, and now we have the opposite idea proposed....

 

[James H]

This is what Peter Hendy said about Thameslink in 2015 when he was TfL commissioner:

"The other thing that people might have to get used to is that you cannot have trains to everywhere," Sir Peter told the City Hall meeting.

"The Underground works with people changing from one frequent service to another frequent service.

"Part of the problem with these services is this massive multiplicity of destinations.

"If you look at Thameslink – and this is a criticism of the way it has been franchised that I am very happy to put in the public arena – when the whole thing is finished, that train service is going to run from King's Lynn to Eastbourne and from Peterborough to all sorts of south coast destinations.

"I would not like to run that at a very high frequency through central London. That is an implausible suggestion.

"Actually, Crossrail is going to be quite complex. It has three ends, two of which are on the national railway network, but it does not have 17 ends and if it did I would not give any chance to it running reliably through central London.

"My strong feeling is that Thameslink will have to go on as it does because the contract has been let, but I bet the next one is Bedford to Gatwick Airport.

"I bet it does not go to Eastbourne and Brighton and King's Lynn and the Wind in the Willows because it is just implausible to get all that lot to work properly in central London."

 

[swt_passenger]

This is what Peter Hendy said about Thameslink in 2015 when he was TfL commissioner:

His main point is ok, but by 2015 it was never going to Eastbourne or Kings Lynn. Might have made better impact to use the destinations actually shown in the franchise spec? In fact didn't (don’t) the trains from Peterborough all go to the same place?

 

[LLivery]

I never really understood all this desire to mess around with Thameslink, much like some always want to muck about with the GN routes - stuff like handing Cambridge and Kings Lynn fasts to LNER (because "intercity")

I guess because it's just not very reliable.

Having a look at Thameslink's stats, at Gatwick Airport there isn't a single period between 7 and 13, where trains arriving 'On Time' was higher than 59.5%. For P11, it was less than 50%. That is dire. Yes, overall PPM is better, but I can't honestly say in terms of reliability, that Thameslink isn't just as frustrating as it was 15 years ago.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

What I don't get is why people perceive the public hating Thameslink?

This forums obsession with TfL is baffling.

 

[Wolfie]

What I don't get is why people perceive the public hating Thameslink?

This forums obsession with TfL is baffling.

As a user l rate TfL's services. However, Thameslink is one of the better services despite folk on here hating the rolling stock.

 

[Basil Jet]

This is what Peter Hendy said about Thameslink in 2015 when he was TfL commissioner:

<snip>

Well, I said regularly that the TL project would be a disaster because of too many southern destinations, but I now feel I was wrong, that it has worked pretty well.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

I consider Thameslink similar to Elizabeth Line in "RER/S-Bahn" standard of outer-suburban rail, then this speculation of a possible TfL takeover is understandable.

I find the EL-Crossrail naming confusing because if Thameslink was to be brought under TfL control then would it get the purple colour scheme & roundel to bring it line with EL?

Also when or if Crossrail 2 and 3 do get built what will these be called "Philip Line" "Diana Line"? Same purple colour scheme?

TfL really needs to bring in an outer-suburban brand, which is clearly not Tube & Overground, which should be "Crossrail" or whatever that the EL and possibly Thameslink and CR2 & 3 should come under.

This may also apply to other TOCs' commuter services into London terminals if TfL does get their hands on them in the future.

The Elizabeth Line currently on its own can look lost & easily appear blended in with other tube lines, especially the Victoria Line, which this can be marked out if the "Crossrail" name is used extensively.

 

[mmh]

If not, then I’d argue that Thameslink should be revised to only serve the core and areas within Greater London. For example, it could still be 24tph through the core, but would only run as far as London Bridge, Orpington and Sutton loop in the south, and Welwyn GC and St Albans in the north. Any existing Thameslink services from further afield would be split and diverted into their respective London termini. After that then I would say that there is a much greater case for TfL to take over.

That's quite a redefinition of Greater London! Thameslink needs to have many terminuses because otherwise you overload them, and by its nature it has to fit in with the other services on lines outside of the core.

Plus try explaining to passengers using it that "Thameslink 2000" can't actually give them the journey they were promised 3 decades ago, recently got, because it needs to be for "London" only.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Anyone who thinks this idea is a good one has forgotten the original idea of the Thameslink programme in the first place - to free up terminal capacity. The high density metro service through the core is a nice bonus.

Inevitably, transferring to TfL will lead to a pair of scissors being snipped around the edge of the TL network and masses of connectivity been lost.

 

[Hadders]

Absolutely no need for TfL to take over Thameslink. TfL operating trains to Bedford, Peterboroigh, Cambridge, Horsham and Brighton simply would not wash.

 

[D365]

From the rest of TSGN, the Northern City line to TfL would make sense too. Bearing in mind it still uses LUL safety rules in the tunnels, just chuck some S stock on it and boom, new underground line...

The Northern City Line is now AWS/TPWS and soon going over to ETCS. And why do you propose creating a third rail island anyway?

 

[Basil Jet]

The Northern City Line is now AWS/TPWS and soon going over to ETCS. And why do you propose creating a third rail island anyway?

It is a third rail island already. The fourth rail is non-functional, and there is no way in and out except via the wired lines north of Drayton Park.

I think a flyover should be built south of New Barnet, and Moorgate to New Barnet / Gordon Hill should be handed over to London Underground (not Overground) but keep the current stock and electrification. I think a lot more people would use stations like Essex Road if they were branded as part of the Underground. The NR services from Hertfordshire should run to Kings Cross / Thameslink, and run non-stop from Enfield Chase / New Barnet to Finsbury Park, so that Barnet and Enfield would have the fast trains to London taken for granted in Bromley / Croydon / Harrow etc.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

It is a third rail island already. The fourth rail is non-functional, and there is no way in and out except via the wired lines north of Drayton Park.

I think a flyover should be built south of New Barnet, and Moorgate to New Barnet / Gordon Hill should be handed over to London Underground (not Overground) but keep the current stock and electrification. I think a lot more people would use stations like Essex Road if they were branded as part of the Underground. The NR services from Hertfordshire should run to Kings Cross / Thameslink, and run non-stop from Enfield Chase / New Barnet to Finsbury Park, so that Barnet and Enfield would have the fast trains to London taken for granted in Bromley / Croydon / Harrow etc.

There just isn't the capacity for anything you have suggested here.

And I am confused as to why it would be better?

 

[Basil Jet]

There just isn't the capacity for anything you have suggested here.

Where isn't there capacity?

And I am confused as to why it would be better?

Because Hertfordshire would have quicker journeys to London, and would no longer be constrained by the platforms lengths of the Northern City.

 

[Grumbler]

Absolutely no need for TfL to take over Thameslink. TfL operating trains to Bedford, Peterboroigh, Cambridge, Horsham and Brighton simply would not wash.

Exactly, at last a recognition that London's rail geography is a barrier to travel in England. Although the Elizabeth speeds up journeys between Liverpool Street and Paddington it isn't possible to travel from Norwich to Swindon, for exampe, without changing twice.

 

[JonathanH]

I think a lot more people would use stations like Essex Road if they were branded as part of the Underground.

Who? Can you explain to me why more people would use Essex Road if it was branded as part of the Underground? It is walking distance from Angel.

These people who are brand loyal to London Underground services and never travel on National Rail services in London are somewhat intriguing.

Exactly, at last a recognition that London's rail geography is a barrier to travel in England. Although the Elizabeth speeds up journeys between Liverpool Street and Paddington it isn't possible to travel from Norwich to Swindon, for exampe, without changing twice.

Does it need to be possible to travel from Norwich to Swindon without changing twice?

Even with Thameslink, two changes are needed for something like Ely to Chichester, but it still makes that journey potentially easier.

The thing about the Elizabeth Line is that there is an incredible concentration of demand along its Eastern corridor out to Romford that doesn't exist to the same extent on either the Midland or Great Northern routes on Thameslink. In contrast, St Albans and Stevenage have much greater usage than Shenfield. Therefore, it is right that Crossrail and Thameslink are set up differently to maximise their usefulness to the traffic flows that exist. North London has a much more dense underground network that contrasts with the line out to Romford.

 

[Grumbler]

Does it need to be possible to travel from Norwich to Swindon without changing twice?

Even with Thameslink, two changes are needed for something like Ely to Chichester, but it still makes that journey potentially easier.

The thing about the Elizabeth Line is that there is an incredible concentration of demand along its Eastern corridor out to Romford that doesn't exist to the same extent on either the Midland or Great Northern routes on Thameslink. In contrast, St Albans and Stevenage have much greater usage than Shenfield. Therefore, it is right that Crossrail and Thameslink are set up differently to maximise their usefulness to the traffic flows that exist. North London has a much more dense underground network that contrasts with the line out to Romford.

It doesn't need to, but why not? Since 1994 we have been able to take a train direct from London to Paris without having to change in Dover and Calais. You can travel from London to Edinburgh without having to change at Newcastle, and to Aberdeen without needing to change trains at Edinburgh.

 

[JonathanH]

Since 1994 we have been able to take a train direct from London to Paris without having to change in Dover and Calais.

Yes, but is only ever going to be economic for that service to start in London.

You can travel from London to Edinburgh without having to change at Newcastle

Yes, although most passengers for Glasgow have to change in Edinburgh.

What railways do really well is carrying lots of passengers in one train. The whole point of railway operation is concentrating as much of the passenger flow as possible on a single train with passengers changing and making connections to allow this to work efficiently.

 

[Recessio]

Even as a huge proponent of giving more NR services to TfL control, I don't think TfL should be running Thameslink in its current form (ie all the way out to Brighton and Cambridge).

Given that truncating Thameslink routes to "just reasonably outside Greater London" destinations, and transferring the longer services back to Southern/SE/GN respectively seems unlikely, what I would support is seeing both Thameslink and Elizabeth line transferred away from NR and TfL to a joint-venture (literally could be called Crossrail Ltd, Network Southeast or something ), i.e. an RER style setup.

That way it could still integrate well with the TfL network (sharing stations, Oyster integration, showing on the tube map etc) and face the reality that the central parts of the line are key metro routes for the capital, but then you can also have sensible input and integration with the solely NR routes too in terms of pathing etc. You also then don't have the thorny issue of voters in e.g. Maidenhead being unable to vote on the Mayor/Assembly controlling their train route, where the current method of "two TfL board members spend 5 minutes pretending to care about people outside Greater London" is hardly a satisfactory solution.

Plus give all the remaining metro routes that serve mostly inside-M25 destinations to London Overground, and expand Greater London to the M25, and install me as benevolent-mayor-for-life while you're at it.

 

[PTR 444]

expand Greater London to the M25

Would this also involve transferring the small section of Greater London that’s already outside the M25 back to Essex?

 

[AM9]

This whole ongoing discussion about giving TfL control of Thameslink is a red herring. The TL network (despite many here and elsewhere insisting that is would be a disaster) has broadly worked as planned. If we recognise that the 2018 timetable introduction hiatus was a staff planning and recruitment failure, (which was largely resolved fairly quickly), the route from then until the pandemic changed travelling needs and then travel patterns, the network has operated pretty well. The trains have delivered a very high volume service and are now amongst the most reliable EMUs on the national network.
What is needed to make the core and some of the lines out from the centre more 'accessible' to inexperienced travellers is for the line to be added to all maps that have the Lizzie on them. To the casual user, TL and the Lizzie perform the same function, i.e. a convenient cross central London link with an extension through to the suburbs. TfL should stop playing silly games pretending that TL doesn't exist.

 

[PTR 444]

I think a common misconception on this subject is that Thameslink HAS to be part of TfL before it can obtain an identity separate from National Rail. The fact that it has now appeared on the tube map is a step in the right direction, although I appreciate it could be drawn much neater. What needs to happen next is for the rest of London’s non-Underground metro lines to take a single identity so it appears and functions like the RER system in Paris - A separate identity for each line using TfL’s corporate branding but services operated by National Rail.

Crossrail and Thameslink perform the same function, so there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be included as part of the same network. They should be incorporated into the Overground, with lines being separate so that Crossrail becomes “Overground A”, Thameslink becomes “Overground B”, East London Line becomes “Overground E” etc, each with their own colour. A fully alphanumeric system might even be better, but what is certain is that passengers need clear information on what lines they need to transfer onto, and exactly where they go.

 

[AM9]

I think a common misconception on this subject is that Thameslink HAS to be part of TfL before it can obtain an identity separate from National Rail. The fact that it has now appeared on the tube map is a step in the right direction, although I appreciate it could be drawn much neater. What needs to happen next is for the rest of London’s non-Underground metro lines to take a single identity so it appears and functions like the RER system in Paris - A separate identity for each line using TfL’s corporate branding but services operated by National Rail.

Crossrail and Thameslink perform the same function, so there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be included as part of the same network. They should be incorporated into the Overground, with lines being separate so that Crossrail becomes “Overground A”, Thameslink becomes “Overground B”, East London Line becomes “Overground E” etc, each with their own colour. A fully alphanumeric system might even be better, but what is certain is that passengers need clear information on what lines they need to transfer onto, and exactly where they go.

There's every reason why TJ & XR should appear to be part of the overall London transport network (not the lower case 't') and it should be publicised as such by travel information sources. Depending on the scope of the information, TL's services should be desribed as available services for zone1 travellers or even zone 1-6 ticket holders, with reference to journey opportunities beyond the zones where appropriate. All of this is to present the choice to passengers in the most helpful way.
But... there's no need to change the service provider of any part of the TL network just because it is shown on the same maps that have XR and LU services on them. TfL should not be fighting the NR constituent operations for passengers, expecially within zone 1, - they are all there to provide a public transport system for London.

 

[SussexSeagull]

I haven't commuted since lockdown but Thameslink is great for getting into London at peak time and avoiding the need for using the underground from places like Durrington while working in Holborn and getting off at City Thameslink. If they stopped such long range services they would need to restore Southern services to London Bridge, and no doubt others into other terminals from the North, plus it would increase underground use.