Thameslink 1988-1994

[Revaulx]

An interesting thought. Holborn back then was almost exclusively used by the City portions of longer distance services - I wonder if the CLR didn't think it was worth it, or whether the SEC objected?

I understood that one of the first actions of the newly “merged” SECR was the building of the Chislehurst chords, which not only enabled all the boat trains to be concentrated at Victoria, but also enabled the majority of the Kent coast commuter expresses to be concentrated at Cannon Street. The latter had much longer platforms than either Blackfriars or HV, so dedicated City services could be run and splitting at Herne Hill avoided. This obviously would have reduced HV’s importance. So maybe the CLR just decided it wasn’t worth it?

 

[30907]

I understood that one of the first actions of the newly “merged” SECR was the building of the Chislehurst chords, which not only enabled all the boat trains to be concentrated at Victoria, but also enabled the majority of the Kent coast commuter expresses to be concentrated at Cannon Street. The latter had much longer platforms than either Blackfriars or HV, so dedicated City services could be run and splitting at Herne Hill avoided. This obviously would have reduced HV’s importance. So maybe the CLR just decided it wasn’t worth it?

That didn't happen for a number of years (the 1922 Bradshaw still has a last survivor in the shape of a Holborn-Ramsgate "City Express").
More likely IMO the CLR didn't see a Holborn-West End market because SEC customers would go straight to Victoria anyway.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I remember being told by another enthusiast (when I were a lad) that the Guildford trains would be extended to Portsmouth as part of T2000, but I suspect there was not a grain of truth in it.

I have an offical Thameslink 2000 map that confirms this. I'll post it here tomorrow.

An interesting thought. Holborn back then was almost exclusively used by the City portions of longer distance services - I wonder if the CLR didn't think it was worth it, or whether the SEC objected?

I've always wondered this. Even if the SECR traffic was all city bound anyway, Chancery Lane to St. Pauls is still quite a stretch without a station.

If the Jubilee Line extension had been built as planned there would have been an interchange station with City Thameslink so its importance would have increased.

The Wikipedia article on City Thameslink states that there are alcoves hidden behind doors on the station platforms known by staff as the LUL Corridor, because this was where the escalator would have been down to the Jubilee. I've been to City Thameslink a few times to look for these doors but haven't found anything. Does anyone know if this is true? There is an old thread discussing it here actually: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fleet-line-concourse-at-city-thameslink.129588/

I’m reasonably sure NSE decided on City Thameslink to identify it as a station near the City. It’s not that much further to Bank from City TL as to Bank from Liverpool St, for example.

I read, and for the life of me I can't find where this was, that Chris Green changed the name to "City Thameslink" out of spite for some reason. Maybe something about the City hectoring NSE about the name being too similar to the Central Line station, so he chose the name flippantly out of annoyance.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Thanks for the replies.

Interesting about the Portsmouth Thameslink service via West Croydon.

I always thought that City Thameslink should be renamed to Holborn & Ludgate (Thameslink) in reference to the former stations it replaced

 

[StephenHunter]

Old Bailey is another option.

 

[Recessio]

Fleet Street, or Ludgate, would be my vote. I like stations named after the old gates.

 

[ls2270]

London Transport didn't have a role but it was something with original involvement from the Greater London Council.

Initial routes were, in order through the Core, across an off-peak hour in 1989:
* Bedford to Gatwick Airport via London Bridge
* Cricklewood to Sevenoaks via Catford / Petts Wood
* Luton to Purley via Streatham
* Bedford to Brighton via London Bridge
* Cricklewood to Sevenoaks via Catford / Bat & Ball
* Luton to Purley via Streatham

At peak times, there were only four trains an hour through the core with the Luton trains diverted to the Wimbledon loop and the Gatwick / Brighton trains diverted via Tulse Hill. There were no peak trains to Sevenoaks. This was to provide sufficient numbers of the 319 fleet on the Midland route.

Later, the Sevenoaks trains were all diverted to the Bat & Ball route, Gatwick trains extended to Brighton and the Purley trains went instead to Guildford off-peak via Streatham and West Croydon and the Wimbledon / Sutton loop in the peak. The Guildford service was subsequently cut back to West Croydon.

Finally, Thameslink took over the Wimbledon / Sutton loop completely prior to privatisation, pulling out of the West Croydon route and off-peak Bedford to Gatwick / Brighton services went 4tph.

There clearly were grandiose plans for Thameslink 2000 which I don't have to hand but think I do have a supplement from Rail somewhere which describes what was planned.

I’m 99 percent sure that the Luton to Purley services were one an hour via Norbury and one an hour via Crystal Palace rather than both via Norbury...but it is an incredible 33 years ago!

 

[bramling]

Fleet Street, or Ludgate, would be my vote. I like stations named after the old gates.

I’ve always found the City Thameslink name rather inappropriate, as it’s so far to one end of the city.

However finding something better isn’t so easy. Personally I’d be happy with Holborn Viaduct, however I can see that isn’t so good for marketing purposes as City. Anything involving St Paul’s is not a good idea due to confusion with the LU station.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’ve always found the City Thameslink name rather inappropriate, as it’s so far to one end of the city.

However finding something better isn’t so easy. Personally I’d be happy with Holborn Viaduct, however I can see that isn’t so good for marketing purposes as City. Anything involving St Paul’s is not a good idea due to confusion with the LU station.

It really is, isn’t t it nearer to Holborn than it is near to the heart of the city itself?

I see it that Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street are true “City” terminal stations.

Years ago when a certain prime minister was mayor didn’t he try to group the Blackfriars, Holborn and Farringdon areas into a “Mid-Town” area? As they were neither the City nor West End?

This is why I think Holborn & Ludgate is a good name, it’s a station that can serve both the city and West End

 

[CaptainBen]

I believe City Thameslink was called St Paul's when it first opened. The problem was that the Central line station of the same name is a few hundred yards away at the other end of the cathedral, and this led to large numbers of very confused tourists.

 

[Aictos]

I believe City Thameslink was called St Paul's when it first opened. The problem was that the Central line station of the same name is a few hundred yards away at the other end of the cathedral, and this led to large numbers of very confused tourists.

Simple solution, rename to St Paul's Thameslink. No idea If it was considered or why it didn't go forward as that seems to be the easiest solution.

 

[30907]

I believe City Thameslink was called St Paul's when it first opened. The problem was that the Central line station of the same name is a few hundred yards away at the other end of the cathedral, and this led to large numbers of very confused tourists.

Ludgate Hill for St Paul's might work?

 

[Bald Rick]

City (as it is, administratively, in the City of London)
Thameslink (as that is the line it is on).

I really don’t see the problem.

 

[Dr Hoo]

City (as it is, administratively, in the City of London)
Thameslink (as that is the line it is on).

I really don’t see the problem.

+1

 

[Journeyman]

+1

Yeah, me too. As long as it doesn't cause any confusion, there isn't a problem here.

 

[StephenHunter]

It's not a very elegant name, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not a very elegant name, though.

Neither is Luton Airport Parkway, but it explains where it is and what it does.

 

[AM9]

City (as it is, administratively, in the City of London)
Thameslink (as that is the line it is on).

I really don’t see the problem.

Yup, City Thameslink is over 500m within the western boundary of the City of London (the Temple Bar monument). Aldgate East and even Tower Hill are both outside the City. So CTK is every bit an appropriate name as it is nearer the centre (i.e. just south of the Guildhall complex) than many of the stations that traditionally serve the City.

 

[greyman42]

Why did they not just call it Holborn Viaduct after the station it replaced?

 

[Journeyman]

Why have we spent so long debating a station name? Does it matter?

 

[43096]

Why did they not just call it Holborn Viaduct after the station it replaced?

"Viaduct" wouldn't really be appropriate given that the station has more in common with a sub-surface station than a viaduct!

 

[greyman42]

"Viaduct" wouldn't really be appropriate given that the station has more in common with a sub-surface station than a viaduct!

Perhaps Holborn Viaduct Low Level!

 

[fairysdad]

If we're saying that naming it St Paul's Thameslink would cause confusion with St Paul's on the Central Line, then surely naming it anything with 'Holborn' in the name would cause exactly the same confusion?!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Holborn Viaduct might have meant something to the legions of toiling Victorian clerks (think Mr Pooter in "Diary of a Nobody" - a fine book) , but we are now in the 21st Century.

 

[Verulamius]

What about Fleet Sewer Thameslink?

 

[alistairlees]

It’s in the City. It’s on Thameslink. Its the perfect name for a new station on a new line with new services. Throwbacks to the past like Holborn Viaduct and Ludgate achieve nothing.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It’s in the City. It’s on Thameslink. Its the perfect name for a new station on a new line with new services. Throwbacks to the past like Holborn Viaduct and Ludgate achieve nothing.

Exactly - sound comment there .

 

[AM9]

I just don't understand why some posters here can't cope with it's current name.

 

[Dave W]

I also suspect that, regardless of what it was called back then, there wouldn’t be many that thought of that area as Holborn now. So even more confusing.

 

[Ianno87]

I just don't understand why some posters here can't cope with it's current name.

And what "confusion" there is exactly with a station name that has been in place for 30 years now.