Southeastern - Timetable change

[JonathanH]

I've got a good idea, they could run direct trains to Charing Cross from each route, Oh wait...

Really weird how when trains are proposed to run from two terminals, there are complaints about passengers not being able to work out which one to go to, and when services are concentrated on one terminal, there are complaints about the inconvenience of changing for the other.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yeah, but that’s pre-covid, of course there are reductions but that’s not what this topic is about.

It’s kind of related though, and let’s look at TfL, they’ve increased the number of services on the DLR, particularly on the Woolwich and Lewisham branches, because more people are travelling again, Southeastern have done the opposite when trains are being used again, it makes no sense.

Really weird how when trains are proposed to run from two terminals, there are complaints about passengers not being able to work out which one to go to, and when services are concentrated on one terminal, there are complaints about the inconvenience of changing for the other.

I’ve never heard any complaints about trains running to two different terminals before, on the contrary it’s what made living in the Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley boroughs very popular because of the the choices of terminals, especially due to the lack of underground connections across much of SE London.

Furthermore whenever there had been a suggestion of “rationalising” routes in the past it’s been met with fierce opposition, just like now, people are unhappy with the changes.

I've got a good idea, they could run direct trains to Charing Cross from each route, Oh wait...

Exactly, It’s worked for decades yet now in 2022 it’s “unworkable” somehow?

 

[evergreenadam]

I think a lot has been made of Lewisham Junction, I’d rather wait at Lewisham or the viaduct for a couple of minutes and get my direct route to the West End than changing at London Bridge, which is often overcrowded now they’ve rationalised the lines.



TfL are rubbing their hands with glee I would imagine, more money and revenue for them! Especially post covid, but as for passengers I have noticed the 53/453 routes being a lot busier lately, I only get the 53 as a last resort but it’s pretty rammed by Blackheath and then there’s the mass exodus at Deptford to change there for the 453.

I do feel that SE see the Elizabeth line as a magic bullet for all a their problems but the Elizabeth line is pretty at capacity most mornings

At which location(s) does it reach capacity?

 

[NorthKent1989]

At which location(s) does it reach capacity?

It’s standing room by Canary Wharf let’s put it that way, especially since the timetable change the Elizabeth line and also the DLR can be full.

 

[Kite159]

It’s standing room by Canary Wharf let’s put it that way, especially since the timetable change the Elizabeth line and also the DLR can be full.

Remember, a 345 doesn't have that many seats as the trains are designed for passengers to be standing. Similar to the Overground.

Some passengers will prefer to stand at one end if the exit is that end, rather than walking down the train to find a seat only to have another walk at their destination station

 

[cle]

No there haven’t been, some stations are seeing as little as 2tph, the Greenwich line with its 23 min gaps between trains despite being 4tph is effectively 2tph with its very uneven gaps

Yep I was thinking that when I asked.

From my point of view, I don't mind taking a tough stance on multiple terminals, and rationalizing to remove or reduce conflicts. Frequency is freedom and all that - but if this exercise is happening then frequencies should be doubling to compensate.

Cannon St - Greenwich - Dartford/loop should be a metro. At least an even 6tph but I think it could do 10tph easily. With most of the 10tph coming back around making up Cannon St's entire service. Which from memory is capped at about 22tph. So maybe all 10tph loop back - with the beyond Dartford service reverting to via Blackheath. Maybe 2tph to Orpington if there is spare tph. But metro only.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Yep I was thinking that when I asked.

From my point of view, I don't mind taking a tough stance on multiple terminals, and rationalizing to remove or reduce conflicts. Frequency is freedom and all that - but if this exercise is happening then frequencies should be doubling to compensate.

Cannon St - Greenwich - Dartford/loop should be a metro. At least an even 6tph but I think it could do 10tph easily. With most of the 10tph coming back around making up Cannon St's entire service. Which from memory is capped at about 22tph. So maybe all 10tph loop back - with the beyond Dartford service reverting to via Blackheath. Maybe 2tph to Orpington if there is spare tph. But metro only.

No way that will happen. Dft and treasury would never fund it.

 

[hkstudent]

Yep I was thinking that when I asked.

From my point of view, I don't mind taking a tough stance on multiple terminals, and rationalizing to remove or reduce conflicts. Frequency is freedom and all that - but if this exercise is happening then frequencies should be doubling to compensate.

Cannon St - Greenwich - Dartford/loop should be a metro. At least an even 6tph but I think it could do 10tph easily. With most of the 10tph coming back around making up Cannon St's entire service. Which from memory is capped at about 22tph. So maybe all 10tph loop back - with the beyond Dartford service reverting to via Blackheath. Maybe 2tph to Orpington if there is spare tph. But metro only.

Indeed, even the rear ends of Central Line can achieve 6tph while population density is lower. That's really the issue of DfT not really to fund this level of service.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

London Bridge is far from easy to interchange at, particularly from platforms that have only down steps not escalators. They are a bit nerve-wracking to use if one is a bit old as people push past all the time and they are too high off the ground. There are lifts, but can ony be reached by narrow platforms that often are very busy as well. Best strategy is to wait on the platform for a bit and wait for the crowd to go down first before attempting to use the stairs.
The timetable change is what NR has always wanted to do 'to improve performance' because they are not historically measured on whether pax are happy or not... or even whether there are any. Shifting SE pax to buses and DLR/EL would count as success in this weird metric...

 

[hkstudent]

London Bridge is far from easy to interchange at, particularly from platforms that have only down steps not escalators. They are a bit nerve-wracking to use if one is a bit old as people push past all the time and they are too high off the ground. There are lifts, but can ony be reached by narrow platforms that often are very busy as well. Best strategy is to wait on the platform for a bit and wait for the crowd to go down first before attempting to use the stairs.
The timetable change is what NR has always wanted to do 'to improve performance' because they are not historically measured on whether pax are happy or not... or even whether there are any. Shifting SE pax to buses and DLR/EL would count as success in this weird metric...

It's possible that they treat passengers don't shift their travel demand, which means that performance improve will "attract" more passengers in return.

 

[NorthKent1989]

London Bridge is far from easy to interchange at, particularly from platforms that have only down steps not escalators. They are a bit nerve-wracking to use if one is a bit old as people push past all the time and they are too high off the ground. There are lifts, but can ony be reached by narrow platforms that often are very busy as well. Best strategy is to wait on the platform for a bit and wait for the crowd to go down first before attempting to use the stairs.
The timetable change is what NR has always wanted to do 'to improve performance' because they are not historically measured on whether pax are happy or not... or even whether there are any. Shifting SE pax to buses and DLR/EL would count as success in this weird metric...

There were plans for a mezzanine floor to siphon off interchanging passengers from those exiting/entering the station, but these were dropped, it certainly would have made changing at London Bridge a lot easier.

Your last paragraph is one point, shifting passengers from SE onto EL/DLR would count as a success but also highlights that SE is in managed decline

Remember, a 345 doesn't have that many seats as the trains are designed for passengers to be standing. Similar to the Overground.

Some passengers will prefer to stand at one end if the exit is that end, rather than walking down the train to find a seat only to have another walk at their destination station

I get this but the Elizabeth line has still been very busy more so recently with all the seats taken up

 

[Bikeman78]

Really weird how when trains are proposed to run from two terminals, there are complaints about passengers not being able to work out which one to go to, and when services are concentrated on one terminal, there are complaints about the inconvenience of changing for the other.

I've never made that complaint. It wouldn't be so bad if they could actually get the four trains per hour to run 15 minutes apart. How hard can it be?

 

[Route115?]

It's a superbly designed station for interchanges. The old station was a total nightmare. Operationally it's a lot better too

Not when you compare it with say Chatalet les Halles in Paris. It needs far more escalators down to a mezzanine at a higher height than the concourse. A Thameslink train I was on was delayed in Platform 5 awaiting a relief so the first northbound train was switched to Platform 6. High marks for operational flexibility but the up escalator wasn't working (ok thre is another one the other side) and people with luggage & pushchairs were blocking the stairs. I made it but not without barging past others. Remember that reducing conflicting movements at Lewisham will reduce the number interchanging at London Bridge.

 

[Dmthomson]

So my experience with this timetable is not great, actually I hate it. Being on the Greenwich branch (Deptford) I find Southeastern trains now pointless because they run just before the Thameslink train towards London Cannon Street at 2tph and it's been like this all week, when going out to Kent their running 4tp to Slade Green or Dartford.

I don't get why a company that wants to encourage people to travel thinks running a 24min gap, then 6min gap, 24min gap again and another 6min gap is the right way to do a timetable towards London Bridge. I thought about walking to New Cross but that train is 2mins before the Cannon Street train at Deptford and also is half hourly. It seems like I should stop using SE and just rely on Thameslink, DLR and LO.

 

[leytongabriel]

It's a superbly designed station for interchanges. The old station was a total nightmare. Operationally it's a lot better too

The clue is the last sentence. Engineer-type thinking - its pretty crap for passengers and a good number of my friends simply refuse to use it /meet there. Looks nice, but try using it in practice.

 

[ComUtoR]

Looks nice, but try using it in practice.

I do, as well as family and friends. None of us have an issue with it.

It's all very much a turn up and go network and, for the most part, that's what I do. I can literally walk down to my local station and there will be a train into London pretty much within a few minutes, at the most, around 10.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I do, as well as family and friends. None of us have an issue with it.

It's all very much a turn up and go network and, for the most part, that's what I do. I can literally walk down to my local station and there will be a train into London pretty much within a few minutes, at the most, around 10.

What line are you on? Because it’s no longer “turn up and go” on the Woolwich/Greenwich line, some stations have gaps up to half an hour.

The clue is the last sentence. Engineer-type thinking - its pretty crap for passengers and a good number of my friends simply refuse to use it /meet there. Looks nice, but try using it in practice.

This is my thinking, London Bridge looks good aesthetically but to change at it’s an absolute nightmare, especially for someone with bad knees, it’s not the great interchange people are claiming it to be.

 

[WizCastro197]

The clue is the last sentence. Engineer-type thinking - it’s pretty crap for passengers and a good number of my friends simply refuse to use it /meet there. Looks nice, but try using it in practice.

I don’t see too many problems with London Bridge, it does the job for passengers and surely the most important thing is that it functions better than the old one. Most of the people o have spoken to like it over the old one, and I’m sure that must be representative of the larger population who have used it. Would you mind explaining why you think it’s ‘crap’ because I really can’t see how.For me it’s the quickest London Terminal to reach (30 minutes from Redhill), so it is very convenient and it must be for those in SE London as well owing to its good interchange. It also depends which part of London you require, for example I find myself using Victoria more, as it more convenient for the places I need to reach in, west central London.

 

[Edsmith]

I don’t see too many problems with London Bridge, it does the job for passengers and surely the most important thing is that it functions better than the old one. Most of the people o have spoken to like it over the old one, and I’m sure that must be representative of the larger population who have used it. Would you mind explaining why you think it’s ‘crap’ because I really can’t see how.For me it’s the quickest London Terminal to reach (30 minutes from Redhill), so it is very convenient and it must be for those in SE London as well owing to its good interchange. It also depends which part of London you require, for example I find myself using Victoria more, as it more convenient for the places I need to reach in, west central London.

I don't see too many problems with London Bridge either and I use the station regularly. I really am baffled by some of the negative comments on here, maybe I'm missing something?

 

[43066]

I don’t see too many problems with London Bridge, it does the job for passengers and surely the most important thing is that it functions better than the old one. Most of the people o have spoken to like it over the old one, and I’m sure that must be representative of the larger population who have used it. Would you mind explaining why you think it’s ‘crap’ because I really can’t see how.For me it’s the quickest London Terminal to reach (30 minutes from Redhill), so it is very convenient and it must be for those in SE London as well owing to its good interchange. It also depends which part of London you require, for example I find myself using Victoria more, as it more convenient for the places I need to reach in, west central London.

I don't see too many problems with London Bridge either and I use the station regularly. I really am baffled by some of the negative comments on here, maybe I'm missing something?

Yes indeed As someone who commutes through London Bridge and uses the station multiple times per week I think it’s excellent, if perhaps a little cold on the main foyer! Interchanges are a little longer than old London Bridge but that was an armpit of a station and the enhanced GTR service through the new station more than makes up for it.

 

[dodecahedron67]

The change at London Bridge is nowhere near as bad as people are making it out to be on here - I do it semi-frequently with my luggage ranging from absolutely zero to a big bulky suitcase and heavy bags and not once have I found it hard to change at. Especially with the harrington humps on the thameslink platforms, I can be off a thameslink on P4/5 and on the platform at P1/2/6/7 in under 2 minutes, just standing on the escalators, and vice versa from P2/3/8/9 to P4/5

From my (admittedly limited) memories of the old station, I absolutely hated it, and we used to go to Charing X to get the tube further north rather than changing at London Bridge, or even just use the Jubilee all the way in from North Greenwich even though it was a 30+ minute drive but other Southeastern stations were under 10, back when I used to live out that way

 

[Bald Rick]

…than old London Bridge but that was an armpit of a station…

Anatomically it was rather lower down than an armpit. You’ve got the first two letters right though…

 

[43066]

Anatomically it was rather lower down than an armpit. You’ve got the first two letters right though…

Those toilets… Wow. I’m still offended/traumatised by them now.

I agree.

 

[Barn]

I do, as well as family and friends. None of us have an issue with it.

It's all very much a turn up and go network and, for the most part, that's what I do. I can literally walk down to my local station and there will be a train into London pretty much within a few minutes, at the most, around 10.

I'd query whether it's now really "turn up and go" even at London Bridge. If you come off a Charing Cross, Thameslink or Southern train at London Bridge and want to switch to a Cannon Street service, you might be waiting 15 mins. (E.g. next service after the 0952 is the 1007)

 

[ComUtoR]

Yes indeed As someone who commutes through London Bridge and uses the station multiple times per week I think it’s excellent, if perhaps a little cold on the main foyer! Interchanges are a little longer than old London Bridge but that was an armpit of a station and the enhanced GTR service through the new station more than makes up for it.

Anatomically it was rather lower down than an armpit. You’ve got the first two letters right though…

The old station really was a cess pit of a station to use; especially platform 7 !

The new layout is stairs/escalator/lift down to the cavernous area beneath that swallows up passenger volumes.

Displays everywhere that show all destinations and a decent set of shops.

The shop layout I find kinda funky as it's a weird mix of shops that live behind the gate line and on the thoroughfare. Not keen on it and that could be improved.

Even going from Guys to the River is easier.

Platform alterations are easier now as they are paired. This may appear to be operationally efficient but that means it's a benefit to the passenger. No more running down stairs and across a concourse when things go wrong. You literally spin a 180 and bosh ! Yes there are odd changes but that's an exception.

It took me a long time to understand the concept and I was a naysayer at first but many discussions with a certain Mr B Rick on another thread eventually convinced me.

Timetables take a while to bed in and I'm sure it still needs a tweek here and there. Too many factors cause what appear to be "timetable problems"

I'd query whether it's now really "turn up and go" even at London Bridge. If you come off a Charing Cross, Thameslink or Southern train at London Bridge and want to switch to a Cannon Street service, you might be waiting 15 mins. (E.g. next service after the 0952 is the 1007)

Cannon Street is a ghost town for most of the day. It's a heavy commuter station. London Bridge is my default station when meeting people coming from multiple directions. It's also a pretty heavy interchange for the tube. Many many many commuters dive off and head for the underground to cross London.

 

[Timmyd]

The old station really was a cess pit of a station to use; especially platform 7 !

The new layout is stairs/escalator/lift down to the cavernous area beneath that swallows up passenger volumes.

Displays everywhere that show all destinations and a decent set of shops.

The shop layout I find kinda funky as it's a weird mix of shops that live behind the gate line and on the thoroughfare. Not keen on it and that could be improved.

Even going from Guys to the River is easier.

Platform alterations are easier now as they are paired. This may appear to be operationally efficient but that means it's a benefit to the passenger. No more running down stairs and across a concourse when things go wrong. You literally spin a 180 and bosh ! Yes there are odd changes but that's an exception.

It took me a long time to understand the concept and I was a naysayer at first but many discussions with a certain Mr B Rick on another thread eventually convinced me.

Timetables take a while to bed in and I'm sure it still needs a tweek here and there. Too many factors cause what appear to be "timetable problems"



Cannon Street is a ghost town for most of the day. It's a heavy commuter station. London Bridge is my default station when meeting people coming from multiple directions. It's also a pretty heavy interchange for the tube. Many many many commuters dive off and head for the underground to cross London.

I struggle to think what was a cesspit about the old station (other than the toilets on the through platforms). Certainly the main circulation area was spacious and uncluttered and I can say for sure you could get from the Central side to the SE side much quicker via the wide 1970s footbridge than navigating the assault course of long escalators and lost tourists you face today. I'm pretty sure there also wasn't even a platform 7 - it was 1-6 SE side and 8-16 on the central side, with 8 being the one outside the train shed.

Incidentally another irritation of the new station is the insufficient number of platforms on the Central side which means that suburban trains always get held outside and trains are timetabled ridiculous amounts of time. For instance what remains of the Forest Hill service is given 11 minutes New Cross Gate to London Bridge off peak - yet another attempt to push passengers onto the Overground?

 

[Bikeman78]

I struggle to think what was a cesspit about the old station (other than the toilets on the through platforms). Certainly the main circulation area was spacious and uncluttered and I can say for sure you could get from the Central side to the SE side much quicker via the wide 1970s footbridge than navigating the assault course of long escalators and lost tourists you face today. I'm pretty sure there also wasn't even a platform 7 - it was 1-6 SE side and 8-16 on the central side, with 8 being the one outside the train shed.

Platform 7 was on the same island as platform 8. The track was removed in the early 1990s when platforms 5 and 6 were extended to 12 cars.

 

[ScotGG]

Not so bothered about changing at London Bridge but the timetable now has silly gaps. Going to Greenwich? Nearly 30 mins gap as the Thameslink and SE leave at pretty much the same time from Platform 4 or 1.

That must be the worst intervals in 50 years? Greenwich would have trains every 10 mins for many years. Before that it was 15 mins spacings. This new timetable is so poorly thought through.

Quite a bit of that now.

 

[Barn]

Not so bothered about changing at London Bridge but the timetable now has silly gaps. Going to Greenwich? Nearly 30 mins gap as the Thameslink and SE leave at pretty much the same time from Platform 4 or 1.

That must be the worst intervals in 50 years? Greenwich would have trains every 10 mins for many years. Before that it was 15 mins spacings. This new timetable is so poorly thought through.

Quite a bit of that now.

Yes, that's the problem. Because the London Bridge boards use the "next fastest service to..." format, the Gravesend stopping service along the North Kent line is only advertised for Woolwich Dockyard, Belvedere and Erith.

For all other stations along the line, the Thameslink service which leaves afterwards overtakes it. That service has to additionally cope with demand for the Greenwich line stations.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Not so bothered about changing at London Bridge but the timetable now has silly gaps. Going to Greenwich? Nearly 30 mins gap as the Thameslink and SE leave at pretty much the same time from Platform 4 or 1.

That must be the worst intervals in 50 years? Greenwich would have trains every 10 mins for many years. Before that it was 15 mins spacings. This new timetable is so poorly thought through.

Quite a bit of that now.

What is the possible justification for this gap. I simply cannot comprehend the gap. I can understand the rationalisation of services and termini but why why why have a 24 minute gap which is essentially the same as reducing the service to 2tph (most people do not check timetables or want to). Why could the SE trains be timetabled on the Greenwich line fifteen minutes after the thameslink train creating a clock face 4tph service?