Southeastern - Timetable change

[NorthKent1989]

It’s all well and good rationalising services to one terminal from one line but it’s got to be an improvement upon the old services, and so far there hasn’t been improvements, if I get a Lewisham train, it’s often at a crawl speed between New Cross to London Bridge, at least when there were CHX trains if we were held up at Lewisham Station or the Fly Down, time would be made up since these trains were fast to London Bridge.

Also contrary to claims that “trains were half full in rush hour” trains are actually more packed than ever, so reducing trains long term was definitely premature and based on old data.

Commuters said this would happen and we were told to “suck it up, it’s an improvement” is it thump!

 

[VC00]

Anyone know if any 465s are doing the CHX - RAM/DVP route today?

 

[Class 466]

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?

Same applies on the sidcup line out of CHX with two trains running right behind eachother all the way to Dartford. It's an easy way to pass on delays from one to the other...

 

[ScotGG]

e 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

Perhaps to fit the TL in with others north of London.

But SE must have known that yet still cut two trains per hour.

 

[nw1]

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?

I would guess that the Thameslink service causes all sorts of constraints, one wonders whether that should revert to an SE service (which would probably be easier to run an even-interval-ish service with) and Thameslink concentrate on the East Croydon (and beyond) corridor.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Even though I'm someone who benefits (significantly) from the Thameslink Greenwich service, I think it should be withdrawn and Thameslink should run 12tph to Gatwick and 12tph to Brighton only.

Fixing Thameslink

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability. To start I’d… a) stop any trains to or from elephant castle going through the core b) create a separate Wimbledon loop line and hand it over to TFL c) stop Thameslink trains...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[PGAT]

Luton - Rainham service is a burden for pretty much everyone. Would have been much better to go down to Caterham, Tattenham Corner or Reigate, but that’s a discussion for another thread

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Luton - Rainham service is a burden for pretty much everyone. Would have been much better to go down to Caterham, Tattenham Corner or Reigate, but that’s a discussion for another thread

I am interested in what it is about the SE services and TL services which meant they could not be timetabled with even 15 minute gaps. I can even forgive the reduction to 4tph given the Elizabeth line and Covid recovery, it’s the 24 minute gap I cannot comprehend.

 

[WizCastro197]

Luton - Rainham service is a burden for pretty much everyone. Would have been much better to go down to Caterham, Tattenham Corner or Reigate, but that’s a discussion for another thread

Reigate doesn’t have the capability to be serviced by Thameslink, and won’t for the the foreseeable future.

 

[PGAT]

Reigate doesn’t have the capability to be serviced by Thameslink, and won’t for the the foreseeable future.

Assuming that the 12 car extension and new Platform 3 were to actually happen

 

[nw1]

Assuming that the 12 car extension and new Platform 3 were to actually happen

Mind you some of the Thameslink units are 8-car, aren't they? (Not sure if Reigate can take 8 cars though, let alone 12)

Also contrary to claims that “trains were half full in rush hour” trains are actually more packed than ever, so reducing trains long term was definitely premature and based on old data.

I think it's now plain that it's down to government-driven cost-cutting, rather than an actual lack of demand.

 

[PGAT]

Mind you some of the Thameslink units are 8-car, aren't they? (Not sure if Reigate can take 8 cars though, let alone 12)

Reigate can currently take up to 4. There were proposals by Network Rail to make a 3rd platform that is 12 coaches long to allow TL to operate there, but it doesn't seem to be happening

 

[nw1]

Reigate can currently take up to 4. There were proposals by Network Rail to make a 3rd platform that is 12 coaches long to allow TL to operate there, but it doesn't seem to be happening

Ah ok, so TL is definitely a no go. (Actually now you say it, I think this has come up before).
(What do they do with the Reigates in the peak these days? Split them off something else at Redhill, I would guess).

I'm sure there are other places besides Rainham they could send the TLs to, but that's going wildly OT so will stop there!

 

[30907]

Perhaps to fit the TL in with others north of London.

But SE must have known that yet still cut two trains per hour.

Does it leave the option of restoring said trains without rewriting the timetable?

I note that the anticlockwise "rounder" is on an exact 15min headway on the Bexleyheath Line (10/20 clockwise), Has anyone (on here) successfully attempted to path the trains differently?

 

[Minstral25]

Reigate can currently take up to 4. There were proposals by Network Rail to make a 3rd platform that is 12 coaches long to allow TL to operate there, but it doesn't seem to be happening

It's south of the Watford Gap and the Tory MP's seat isn't that risky, so of course there is no funding

 

[cle]

I'm sure there are other places besides Rainham they could send the TLs to, but that's going wildly OT so will stop there!

If there are no spare paths through Windmill, it would have to take over a pair of services from Victoria (or some slows) which synced up time-wise. 8 car services ideally - so people used to 12 aren't losing them. Probably would rule out East Grinstead for instance.

A shame as 1tph to Reigate and 1tph to Tonbridge (if platform lengths worked) would be nice, measured re-connections.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Even though I'm someone who benefits (significantly) from the Thameslink Greenwich service, I think it should be withdrawn and Thameslink should run 12tph to Gatwick and 12tph to Brighton only.

Fixing Thameslink

Am I the only one who thinks Thameslink is a bit of a damp squid with insufficient frequencies and poor reliability. To start I’d… a) stop any trains to or from elephant castle going through the core b) create a separate Wimbledon loop line and hand it over to TFL c) stop Thameslink trains...

www.railforums.co.uk

Could you run 12 tph in and out of Brighton station from the north? And even if the station could cope, is it possible with different stopping patterns at the stations immediately north of Brighton? And does that mean no West Coastway through trains to London (and East Coastway too?)?

 

[Minstral25]

If there are no spare paths through Windmill, it would have to take over a pair of services from Victoria (or some slows) which synced up time-wise. 8 car services ideally - so people used to 12 aren't losing them. Probably would rule out East Grinstead for instance.

A shame as 1tph to Reigate and 1tph to Tonbridge (if platform lengths worked) would be nice, measured re-connections.

Why would you halve the service to Reigate to connect Tonbridge when Tonbridge hardly produces any through traffic.

 

[JonathanH]

8 car services ideally - so people used to 12 aren't losing them.

8 car services mixed in with 12 car services on the East Croydon corridor aren't ideal because passengers don't let a crowded service go without them to wait for the longer one.

 

[nw1]

8 car services mixed in with 12 car services on the East Croydon corridor aren't ideal because passengers don't let a crowded service go without them to wait for the longer one.

Except presumably some of the services would be busier than others, due to ultimate destination served. For example a hypothetical TL to Reigate or East Grinstead (the latter presumably being realistic, as it can take 8 cars) would presumably be less busy than a Brighton so there wouldn't necessarily be less seats despite it being 8-cars.

Look at somewhere like Woking. A frequent turn-up-and-go fast service to London which has traditionally had wildly differing train lengths on the fasts, from 4 to 12*. But you can't say that the 4-cars will be automatically more crowded than the 10- or 12-cars, because they may have originated from a quieter destination (Alton, say) versus a busier one (Portsmouth or Weymouth).

It certainly doesn't, to me, seem a good enough justification for forcing the TL to go to Rainham, leading to all sorts of constraints on the SE network and the denial of an even-interval service to somewhere like Greenwich. Is it not better to run simpler networks, because then you don't "import" constraints from (say) the MML into the SE network, you focus TL on one single route?


(*Actually that's wrong. It's 2 to 12, because some Salisbury services were 2-car for a while).

 

[WizCastro197]

8 car services mixed in with 12 car services on the East Croydon corridor aren't ideal because passengers don't let a crowded service go without them to wait for the longer one.

In addition, passengers have no idea whether the next one is indeed longer until the crowded one standing there has left, as the displays won’t show any further information of the second inbound train (except planned arrival time, expected time and destination) until the prior one has left.

 

[PGAT]

The Southern website has information about seat availability per train, but in my experience it seems to underexaggerate

 

[WizCastro197]

The Southern website has information about seat availability per train, but in my experience it seems to underexaggerate

It is rarely accurate, I wouldn’t trust it. I have no idea how they gather this data with services not operated by a refurbished 377.

 

[PGAT]

I have no idea how they gather this data with services not operated by a refurbished 377.

I think they are just estimations. I remember January 2022 when they were rolling out the seat availability onto the dot-matrix displays on the platforms and announcements, but they were probably removed due to the unreliability. SouthEastern also have a similar system that is slightly better.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Thameslink to Rainham will always mystify me, considering that by the mid 2000s the project ditched all the Dartford routes altogether because they found it unworkable and five years on they weren’t far wrong as to why it was ditched in the first place.

It undoes the separating of lines into London Bridge at NKE Junction, it’s given Medway a much slower journey to key interchanges on the line (namely Abbey Wood and Woolwich Arsenal)

If they did get rid of it it’ll just be a matter of extending the current Gravesend via Blackheath/Woolwich service to Medway in the next timetable change, but for the Thameslink side of things it’ll mean gaps north of the river.

It’s service that was really a consolation prize for the Greenwich line losing Charing Cross trains.

Hard to think that until recently the Greenwich line had 6tph, and now they’ve effectively got 2tph with bizarre uneven gaps.

 

[43066]

Thameslink to Rainham will always mystify me, considering that by the mid 2000s the project ditched all the Dartford routes altogether because they found it unworkable and five years on they weren’t far wrong as to why it was ditched in the first place.

It undoes the separating of lines into London Bridge at NKE Junction, it’s given Medway a much slower journey to key interchanges on the line (namely Abbey Wood and Woolwich Arsenal)

If they did get rid of it it’ll just be a matter of extending the current Gravesend via Blackheath/Woolwich service to Medway in the next timetable change, but for the Thameslink side of things it’ll mean gaps north of the river.

It’s service that was really a consolation prize for the Greenwich line losing Charing Cross trains.

Hard to think that until recently the Greenwich line had 6tph, and now they’ve effectively got 2tph with bizarre uneven gaps.

Wasn’t what’s now the Rainham GTR service originally meant to go to Catarham or somewhere else off the BML, but there ended up not being enough capacity at East Croydon, absent the rebuild of Windmill Bridge junction (which now isn’t happening AIUI)?

 

[nw1]

Wasn’t what’s now the Rainham GTR service originally meant to go to Catarham or somewhere else off the BML, but there ended up not being enough capacity at East Croydon, absent the rebuild of Windmill Bridge junction (which now isn’t happening AIUI)?

Though presumably it would not be in addition to existing services, but a replacement for them.

What's wrong with East Grinstead incidentally, as an alternative destination to Rainham? That would seem a perfect destination for TL, as it's a dead-end branch - and at one time there were TL peak extras down there so the stock is presumably cleared for the tunnel.

Thameslink to Rainham will always mystify me, considering that by the mid 2000s the project ditched all the Dartford routes altogether because they found it unworkable and five years on they weren’t far wrong as to why it was ditched in the first place.

It undoes the separating of lines into London Bridge at NKE Junction, it’s given Medway a much slower journey to key interchanges on the line (namely Abbey Wood and Woolwich Arsenal)

Just checked Abbey Wood to Rochester, out of curiosity. Currently 46 mins. In 1982 (available on Timetable World) just 34 mins, with limited stops at Dartford, Gravesend, Higham (alternate services) and Strood only. Inwards from Abbey Wood it was Woolwich and Lewisham only, so it was a rare-example of a true semi-fast service operated by suburban stock (EPBs). With the importance of Abbey Wood, Woolwich and Lewisham as interchange stations greater now than back then, one would think that there would be even more demand for such a limited stop service than there was in 1982!

 

[JonathanH]

What's wrong with East Grinstead incidentally, as an alternative destination to Rainham?

The custom on the East Grinstead line now only justifies an hourly off peak service to Victoria. Sending two trains an hour there from the Thameslink route is just running empty trains for the sake of it.

 

[Minstral25]

Wasn’t what’s now the Rainham GTR service originally meant to go to Catarham or somewhere else off the BML, but there ended up not being enough capacity at East Croydon, absent the rebuild of Windmill Bridge junction (which now isn’t happening AIUI)?

Yes, but now the Caterham service has been halved and there are less services through Windmill Junction I'd bet it would be possible to fit now. Especially as there is only a half-hourly London Bridge service.

What's wrong with East Grinstead incidentally, as an alternative destination to Rainham? That would seem a perfect destination for TL, as it's a dead-end branch - and at one time there were TL peak extras down there so the stock is presumably cleared for the tunnel.

East Grinstead currently has a mainly Victoria service of 10/12 coaches so presumably the 8 coach Thameslink going to Rainham are not long enough for the route.

 

[nw1]

The custom on the East Grinstead line now only justifies an hourly off peak service to Victoria. Sending two trains an hour there from the Thameslink route is just running empty trains for the sake of it.

The worst service for East Grinstead since before October 1987 by the sounds of it; even in the early 90s recession and the credit crunch they managed to run 2tph down there off peak. A sad indictment of the times (and somewhat contrary to the theory that off-peak hasn't taken a hit).

Yes, but now the Caterham service has been halved and there are less services through Windmill Junction I'd bet it would be possible to fit now. Especially as there is only a half-hourly London Bridge service.

Can Caterham cope with 8-cars incidentally? If so, sounds a perfect fit.

East Grinstead currently has a mainly Victoria service of 10/12 coaches so presumably the 8 coach Thameslink going to Rainham are not long enough for the route.

Ah ok, I thought East Grinstead was only 8-car, partly because of platform length restrictions. I've only ever seen 8-cars (and 4-cars in the slam-door era) go down there, though admittedly this was a few years ago.