Should the West London line (Croydon to Milton Keynes) be part of Thameslink?

[NorthKent1989]

Maybe as a “Thameslink 2” in an expanded Thameslink network,

One poster already suggested 2tph between Clapham to Watford and 1tph between South Croydon (or maybe even Gatwick) to Milton Keynes

This service does seem out of place in the Southern network, could Thameslink be a better operator for this?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Maybe as a “Thameslink 2” in an expanded Thameslink network,

One poster already suggested 2tph between Clapham to Watford and 1tph between South Croydon (or maybe even Gatwick) to Milton Keynes

This service does seem out of place in the Southern network, could Thameslink be a better operator for this?

A couple of things. First, Thameslink is mainly for the services running through the central core i.e St Pancras-Blackfriars and therefor would still look odd as a Thameslink route IMO. Second, what other operator could you put it in?

My opinion it should not be part of Thameslink.

 

[NorthKent1989]

A couple of things. First, Thameslink is mainly for the services running through the central core i.e St Pancras-Blackfriars and therefor would still look odd as a Thameslink route IMO. Second, what other operator could you put it in?

My opinion it should not be part of Thameslink.

That’s why it would be advertised as Thameslink 2, to differentiate it from the main Thameslink.

You could even call it the “Kensington Line” but in the Thameslink network

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would complicate things in that Thameslink is wholly DOO and it requires guards north of Clapham Jn (well, once it reaches the WCML, but it's guard-operated north of Clapham). Also an infrequent service isn't really Thameslink style and there's no space to increase it.

Having said that, I think 8-car Class 700s would be very suitable for it given that it is lightly loaded on the outer reaches but quite busy in the middle section.

 

[AM9]

It would complicate things in that Thameslink is wholly DOO and it requires guards north of Clapham Jn (well, once it reaches the WCML, but it's guard-operated north of Clapham). Also an infrequent service isn't really Thameslink style and there's no space to increase it.

Having said that, I think 8-car Class 700s would be very suitable for it given that it is lightly loaded on the outer reaches but quite busy in the middle section.

So that could be a role for class 707s, (fitted with pantograph and transformers of course) and maybe toilets. Given that the 378s in use are 5-car Capitalstars, and Southern have used class 377/7s to MK, the 707s are the same 100m length for the NLL platforms yet they have the passenger-swallowing qualities of the 700s.

 

[yorkie]

Maybe as a “Thameslink 2” in an expanded Thameslink network,

One poster already suggested 2tph between Clapham to Watford and 1tph between South Croydon (or maybe even Gatwick) to Milton Keynes

This service does seem out of place in the Southern network, could Thameslink be a better operator for this?

Southern branded services are operated by Govia Thameslink, so you are not proposing a change of operator.

Are you proposing these trains are somehow diverted using a new chord to serve the Thameslink route?

Or are you asking if Govia Thameslink should re-brand this service from a Southern branded route to a Thameslink branded route?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So that could be a role for class 707s, (fitted with pantograph and transformers of course) and maybe toilets.

Don't see why not, but they would *definitely* need toilets, it is quite a long journey and many stations it serves have none or have them only available at some times of day.

Given that the 378s in use are 5-car Capitalstars

Not any more, all are 8-car sets of older Electrostars.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Southern branded services are operated by Govia Thameslink, so you are not proposing a change of operator.

Are you proposing these trains are somehow diverted using a new chord to serve the Thameslink route?

Or are you asking if Govia Thameslink should re-brand this service from a Southern branded route to a Thameslink branded route?

I was proposing a rebrand, as a second Thameslink rather than it being part of the traditional Thameslink service, I wasn’t suggesting your second question at all.

 

[yorkie]

I was proposing a rebrand, as a second Thameslink rather than it being part of the traditional Thameslink service, I wasn’t suggesting your second question at all.

OK so this thread is just debating the brand name for the existing service under the existing operator with nothing actually changing. OK.

I think it would be very confusing branding it "Thameslink" given that this service does not go via the Thameslink route.

 

[AM9]

Don't see why not, but they would *definitely* need toilets, it is quite a long journey and many stations it serves have none or have them only available at some times of day.



Not any more, all are 8-car sets of older Electrostars.

Actually, I mentioned the fact that the WLL stops could cater for 5-car Electrostars because of the existing LO service using 5-car 378s. I wasn't sure whether they were still using the 377/7s or not. At my recent visit to MK, I had more pressing things to do than study which 377 variant was sitting at platform 2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, I mentioned the fact that the WLL stops could cater for 5-car Electrostars because of the existing LO service using 5-car 378s. I wasn't sure whether they were still using the 377/7s or not. At my recent visit to MK, I had more pressing things to do than study which 377 variant was sitting at platform 2.

Ah.

As mentioned all services are now 8-car 7 days a week (which means a table bay each at quiet times - they've kept it simple rather than doing any splitting and joining during the day, and short-forms are very rare). The extra capacity is welcome, but something like an 8-car Class 700 would be even more suitable.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

All it needs is 2tph, formed of 5 car 377/7s. A simplified service from Watford Junction would be fine if the Tring stoppers continued down to Bletchley (Platform 5).

As it's only 5 coaches the off-peak services could continue to Reigate and Tonbridge - a very nice little bonus for them lot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All it needs is 2tph, formed of 5 car 377/7s

No, it'd need 2tph formed of 8 coaches. At present, the hourly service compared with much more frequent options via London serves as a dissuader. If it went to half-hourly, there would be no reason not to go that way, coupled with it usually being cheaper.

A simplified service from Watford Junction would be fine if the Tring stoppers continued down to Bletchley (Platform 5).

I'd rather the through service, though if connections were planned to be good I wouldn't mind that *too* much. You could argue that given relative demand you could make the second TPH a Clapham-Watford shuttle, though. There is the odd one of those in the peaks as well as Shepherd's Bush short workings. There is an alternative argument that the second TPH should be an InterCity working which didn't call at all WLL stations.

As it's only 5 coaches the off-peak services could continue to Reigate and Tonbridge - a very nice little bonus for them lot.

There are pathing issues continuing them past East Croydon, I believe.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

No, it'd need 2tph formed of 8 coaches. At present, the hourly service compared with much more frequent options via London serves as a dissuader. If it went to half-hourly, there would be no reason not to go that way, coupled with it usually being cheaper.



I'd rather the through service, though if connections were planned to be good I wouldn't mind that *too* much. You could argue that given relative demand you could make the second TPH a Clapham-Watford shuttle, though. There is the odd one of those in the peaks as well as Shepherd's Bush short workings. There is an alternative argument that the second TPH should be an InterCity working which didn't call at all WLL stations.



There are pathing issues continuing them past East Croydon, I believe.

Not if you remove the through Victoria service from Reigate and Tonbridge and replace it with the West London service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if you remove the through Victoria service from Reigate and Tonbridge and replace it with the West London service.

Which would be about as popular as the aborted attempt to remove Watford DC line services from Euston, i.e. you'd have the denizens of Reigate and Tonbridge marching on Southern's headquarters with pitchforks.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Which would be about as popular as the aborted attempt to remove Watford DC line services from Euston, i.e. you'd have the denizens of Reigate and Tonbridge marching on Southern's headquarters with pitchforks.

But they've already had a bad service foisted upon them since they went hourly Tonbridge. At least with a 5 car going to Reigate / Tonbridge you have the ability to make through journeys from Redhill and Purley to the West Coast; and one has to suggest that Reigate passengers soon having 3tph to Redhill in addition with GWR increasing the frequency will undoubtedly create a situation where it will likely be vastly easier to just use the 4tph on Thameslink instead which will be fast to Central London and St Pancras.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they've already had a bad service foisted upon them since they went hourly Tonbridge. At least with a 5 car going to Reigate / Tonbridge you have the ability to make through journeys from Redhill and Purley to the West Coast; and one has to suggest that Reigate passengers soon having 3tph to Redhill in addition with GWR increasing the frequency will undoubtedly create a situation where it will likely be vastly easier to just use the 4tph on Thameslink instead which will be fast to Central London and St Pancras.

But then we're back to 5 car will be inadequate for the WCML south of Watford anyway. Up the frequency and they will come. Mark my words.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

But then we're back to 5 car will be inadequate for the WCML south of Watford anyway. Up the frequency and they will come. Mark my words.

But the key thing would be that in the future, they are planning to have 12tph formed of 5 coaches (10 378s and then whatever the next thing is) on the WLL; see the RUS.

This would mean it best to operate the 377/7s as part of this 12tph and operating solid half-hourly at the same minutes past each hour for the entire day and layering up the London Overground stuff around it to give perfectly 6-minutely services between Shepherds Bush and Clapham Junction. How this would impact on Richmond we cannot really know but it is obvious that TfL and Network Rail find the WLL is vastly more of a priority than the Richmond - Willesden sector. And the benefit to using 5 car is that if you need capacity in future, you could add it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the benefit to using 5 car is that if you need capacity in future, you could add it.

This is very "TPE Class 185".

If you make it half hourly, you will start needing the capacity that day, as it will come up for far more journeys on the planners due to vastly improved connections, not to mention people choosing to go to Westfield etc because when they've finished there won't be a long wait for a train. Then there won't be the money or some other excuse will be used.

The issue is not it operating as part of the LO service - the heavy loadings are between Watford, Harrow and Wembley and stations on the WLL itself. Therefore, 12tph of LO services won't even make a dent in it. Clapham Junction to the WLL is not a significant part of the demand - people just go to platform 1/2 because of the more frequent service.

It needs to remain 8-car even if the frequency is upped. There may become a point where 12-car needs to be considered, or 8-car of something with an interior more reminiscent of the S-stock. But remember it's a regional service, not a metro, and just cramming people into a 5-car train with almost no seats as per LO is not a sensible solution.

Out of interest, have you ever ridden on this route and observed loadings and usage on an ongoing basis? I have been using it frequently for many years.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

People currently use an hourly 8 car; so a half-hourly 5 car adds a net increase of 25% in capacity terms. There is, of course, always the option of going over to 8 car 377/2 or 377/5 with minimal effort in the next timetable change.

And yes, I do use the route a lot and I do understand the absolutely shocking overcrowding that occurs however between 17:00 and 17:59 at the moment there are just 6 trains. A sudden doubling to 12 will make a mammoth difference - and if the West London service were appropriately operated north (non-calling at Wembley Central and Harrow during peak times), there will be a natural shift from Southern to changing at Willesden. Take for example tonight's 17:53 service from Shepherd's Bush to Harrow which takes a whole 20 minutes (it should only take 13 minutes with a clean path). If you took the 17:48 Stratford and changed t Willesden you'd be at Harrow at 18:22; or the 18:02 from Shepherds Bush would get you to Harrow at 18:32. These are not massive increases in journey time or inconvenience but would also allow the end user to plan their journeys far more reliably as they'd only need to wait up to 12 minutes for the next train: not 30.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People currently use an hourly 8 car

But lots more will use a half hourly service, as it will come up on the planners for far more journeys than it presently does.

 

[Bedpan]

Going back to the genesis of Thameslink - it would have been good if the WLL could have been included in the Thameslink network. Maybe two trains an hour a few stations (say from Three Bridges, Gatwick, Reigate, or even Tonbridge as has been suggested, up the established Thameslink route to East Croydon - then over the West London Line and on to Watford Junction, and then either to Bletchley and Bedford or to St Albans Abbey.

I know this is just a pipedream and could never have worked - not least because of the minimum 35 - 40 mins from Watford Junction to St Albans and back - I'm not even sure if a passing loop at Bricket Wood would work, but it would have looked good on a may.

Going from the completely unachievable to the ridiculously unachievable, build a link from the Abbey line to the MML so that the West London line trains could rejoin the established route and proceed to Bedford that way.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Going back to the genesis of Thameslink - it would have been good if the WLL could have been included in the Thameslink network. Maybe two trains an hour a few stations (say from Three Bridges, Gatwick, Reigate, or even Tonbridge as has been suggested, up the established Thameslink route to East Croydon - then over the West London Line and on to Watford Junction, and then either to Bletchley and Bedford or to St Albans Abbey.

I know this is just a pipedream and could never have worked - not least because of the minimum 35 - 40 mins from Watford Junction to St Albans and back - I'm not even sure if a passing loop at Bricket Wood would work, but it would have looked good on a may.

Going from the completely unachievable to the ridiculously unachievable, build a link from the Abbey line to the MML so that the West London line trains could rejoin the established route and proceed to Bedford that way.

I initially thought of send Thameslink West London trains to St Albans Abbey, but logistically it would make impossible moves.

I'd definitely like to see this service extended to Gatwick someday

 

[ert47]

Its the crawl through South London from Clapham Junction to East Croydon which would make any extension to stations beyond East Croydon to Redhill/Reigate/Tonbridge/Gatwick Airport very unattractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its the crawl through South London from Clapham Junction to East Croydon which would make any extension to stations beyond East Croydon to Redhill/Reigate/Tonbridge/Gatwick Airport very unattractive.

As everyone on the Manchester related threads is always shouting about, people like direct trains to airports, so Gatwick would still be popular even if a bit slow. However, I'd agree on the others, most people would just change at Clapham Jn as they do on the morning one even for East Croydon, as it is even slower (as for pathing reasons it runs 10 minutes earlier on the WCML than for the rest of the day and sits at Clapham Jn for those 10 minutes to resume its normal path south of there).

 

[Aictos]

I've got some question about the Tring services and the proposed second train per hour on the WLL to Milton Keynes;

Would it be better for the 2nd Southern to be formed of 8 coaches and run though to Milton Keynes OR extend it to Tring with the Tring stoppers being extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes?

The other thing as well would it not be better if the Peak Willesden Junction services were extended to Watford Junction operated by London Overground?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've got some question about the Tring services and the proposed second train per hour on the WLL to Milton Keynes;

Would it be better for the 2nd Southern to be formed of 8 coaches and run though to Milton Keynes OR extend it to Tring with the Tring stoppers being extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes?

As long as we keep one, I don't mind. It would be nice to have 1tph of London services starting at Bletchley, those ones are my preference in the morning peak.

The other thing as well would it not be better if the Peak Willesden Junction services were extended to Watford Junction operated by London Overground?

No, that would overcomplicate LO by adding WCML running, like Merseyrail it's best kept simple, and if it was on the DC line it would be too slow to be useful.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've got some question about the Tring services and the proposed second train per hour on the WLL to Milton Keynes;

Would it be better for the 2nd Southern to be formed of 8 coaches and run though to Milton Keynes OR extend it to Tring with the Tring stoppers being extended to Bletchley/Milton Keynes?

The other thing as well would it not be better if the Peak Willesden Junction services were extended to Watford Junction operated by London Overground?

The Tring services cannot be extended, as there is a freight path right behind them.

And as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a proposed 2nd train an hour for the Southern service. The opposite half hour to the existing service also has a freight path in it.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

But lots more will use a half hourly service, as it will come up on the planners for far more journeys than it presently does.

Again, just start with 5 and go to 8 if needed. Peak motivating measures such as not-stopping Harrow and Wembley and also not stopping at some Metro stations south of Clapham would likely do the trick.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I initially thought of send Thameslink West London trains to St Albans Abbey, but logistically it would make impossible moves.

I'd definitely like to see this service extended to Gatwick someday

Realistically a ‘dynamic loop’ and some relatively cheap re-modelling of Watford South Jn would do it.

And yes, an extension to Three Bridges via Purley and Redhill off-peak at least could be logical.