Thameslink brighton service

[Magdalia]

You see, I still have to question the 180 minutes thing. Just this morning, a train rolls out of Farringdon and the next one is 8 minutes. By my calculations that's a lot more than 180 seconds. This isn't a one-off either, this happens frequently and this is in the 8am-9am period, at the very peak of peak time.

That is inevitable occasionally when trains are timed to run every 180 seconds. If one train is significantly late, or cancelled, that makes a gap of 360 seconds. It isn't possible to wave a magic wand and produce a train running 180 seconds early. But then the first train after the 360 seconds gap gets delayed a bit more, because of increased dwell time through more people alighting and boarding, and more crowded platforms. It only takes 30 extra seconds dwell time at each station through the core to add 150 seconds to journey time. It is the railway version of waiting ages for a bus then 2 come at once. A 20 tph timetable will recover quickly from that, by stepping up to a train every 150 seconds, which is deliverable in short bursts. But a 24 tph timetable will build in that delay all through the peak.

The money (which was pretty well within budget) has delivered a robust high capacity two track railway through the centre of London using mostly existing infrastructure.

I couldn't have put that better myself. At peak 20 tph the Thameslink core is a success, but it should not be pushed to breaking point, and 24 tph would do that.

 

[bramling]

Any diagrams that are not using the only class of trains cleared for the core are by definition not functionally 'Thameslink', i.e. providing for through central London journeys.

They may not be now (and indeed a recent timetable change even changed the branding back to Great Northern), but that certainly wasn’t the plan. And I don’t think anything has ever been announced regarding Maidstone-Cambridge being officially abandoned, in terms of public-facing media it has simply been kicked into the longest grass one can possibly imagine.

The money (which was pretty well within budget) has delivered a robust high capacity two track railway through the centre of London using mostly existing infrastructure.

Don’t dispute that. However one thinks back to the various arguments on here about how workable the 24tph Thameslink Programme plans were, and how anyone casting doubt on that was wrong or deluded.

I’m sure some searching will find plenty of posts speculating that it wouldn’t be the core that would be the big problem, but the complexity and inherent unreliability of the routes feeding into it. Here we are a few years later, and we seem to be in exactly that position - no 24tph, fewer through services than envisaged (partly but not entirely due to Covid), and 700 use having been scaled back as some years in they still don’t seem to be hitting the awesome level of availability promised, such that cancellations and short forms are still fairly common.

Had the whole Thameslink Programme been better thought through from the start then we might have seen the spend more closely aligned to delivering infrastructure aimed at supporting the service as it actually runs now, rather than that dreamed up by the Thameslink Programme.

We have been left with oddities like 8-car 700s rarely passing a maintenance depot, and a crew depot at a location many miles from where their trains actually run! And arguably too few 700/1s. Doesn’t seem like great planning to me.

 

[AM9]

They may not be now (and indeed a recent timetable change even changed the branding back to Great Northern), but that certainly wasn’t the plan. And I don’t think anything has ever been announced regarding Maidstone-Cambridge being officially abandoned, in terms of public-facing media it has simply been kicked into the longest grass one can possibly imagine.

I was looking around for the posts that included the planned services, remembering that the Maidstone service was there, but owing to covid coming before the whole plan was rolled out, seem to have dropped off with the reduction in demands.
I think that the Luton-Rainham service wasn't originally there so maybe that's substitued for something. Who knows how much future demand may play a part in the TL networks service provision?

Don’t dispute that. However one thinks back to the various arguments on here about how workable the 24tph Thameslink Programme plans were, and how anyone casting doubt on that was wrong or deluded.

I’m sure some searching will find plenty of posts speculating that it wouldn’t be the core that would be the big problem, but the complexity and inherent unreliability of the routes feeding into it. Here we are a few years later, and we seem to be in exactly that position - no 24tph, fewer through services than envisaged (partly but not entirely due to Covid), and 700 use having been scaled back as some years in they still don’t seem to be hitting the awesome level of availability promised, such that cancellations and short forms are still fairly common.

Had the whole Thameslink Programme been better thought through from the start then we might have seen the spend more closely aligned to delivering infrastructure aimed at supporting the service as it actually runs now, rather than that dreamed up by the Thameslink Programme.

We have been left with oddities like 8-car 700s rarely passing a maintenance depot, and a crew depot at a location many miles from where their trains actually run! And arguably too few 700/1s. Doesn’t seem like great planning to me.

I agree that there are issues, on the ECML and particularly the BML that can frequently undermine the smooth running of TL, maybe there was an assumption (or wishful thinking!) by Network Rail, that the latter was likely to be improved around East Croydon, (the Windmill Bridge/Selhurst Triangle scheme). Were it to happen, the service from Gatwick northwards might be less of an encumbrance to all services. Apart from the eternal wish of four tracking the Digswell viaduct/Welwyn North tunnel, I am not aware of any large schemes to manage the overall increase of ECML traffic.
To be honest, with post-covid reduced patronage, I don't think the full 20tph peak service would be that much better with an extra 4 tph. That is probably dowwn to the 700's ability to clear such large numbers, despit relatively short dwells in thee core.

I assume by your comment on 700/0 stock maintenance is that not all of them pass Three bridges except by weaving the 8-car diagrams into the BML runs. Aren't some of the Cambridge runs stopping at short platforms on the east side? If so then they get a pass on Three Briges. Clearly the MML services need to include cycling the metro stock, - in my experience th 8-car fasts are relatively rare.

 

[Magdalia]

I don’t think anything has ever been announced regarding Maidstone-Cambridge being officially abandoned, in terms of public-facing media it has simply been kicked into the longest grass one can possibly imagine.

Hopefully never to be found again.

it wouldn’t be the core that would be the big problem, but the complexity and inherent unreliability of the routes feeding into it.

Running the Cambridge stoppers through the core was the pinnacle of that. Fortunately we didn't get to see the consequences of actually trying to do it.

 

[bramling]

I was looking around for the posts that included the planned services, remembering that the Maidstone service was there, but owing to covid coming before the whole plan was rolled out, seem to have dropped off with the reduction in demands.

Covid might have been a convenient cloud under which to bury Maidstone, but it doesn’t seem like it would have happened anyway.

I think that the Luton-Rainham service wasn't originally there so maybe that's substitued for something.

Rainham replaced Caterham / Tattenham Corner. It seems to be the case that this rather longer run also utilised some of the 700/0s which would have nominally been available for Maidstone. Come 2019 had a politician demanded Cambridge to Maidstone happen then I’m not sure where the stock would have come from, not without having to take some from elsewhere on Thameslink at any rate. Luton to Rainham uses a lot of trains.

I agree that there are issues, on the ECML and particularly the BML that can frequently undermine the smooth running of TL, maybe there was an assumption (or wishful thinking!) by Network Rail, that the latter was likely to be improved around East Croydon, (the Windmill Bridge/Selhurst Triangle scheme). Were it to happen, the service from Gatwick northwards might be less of an encumbrance to all services. Apart from the eternal wish of four tracking the Digswell viaduct/Welwyn North tunnel, I am not aware of any large schemes to manage the overall increase of ECML traffic.
To be honest, with post-covid reduced patronage, I don't think the full 20tph peak service would be that much better with an extra 4 tph. That is probably dowwn to the 700's ability to clear such large numbers, despit relatively short dwells in thee core.

I assume by your comment on 700/0 stock maintenance is that not all of them pass Three bridges except by weaving the 8-car diagrams into the BML runs. Aren't some of the Cambridge runs stopping at short platforms on the east side? If so then they get a pass on Three Briges. Clearly the MML services need to include cycling the metro stock, - in my experience th 8-car fasts are relatively rare.

Cambridge to Brighton is booked all 700/1, though often turns out 700/0s. I don’t think there’s much if any routine short platforms on this route. (Actually just remembered they SDO at Baldock and Ashwell - I think the original plan was Baldock wouldn’t be served, but this got changed following local outrage!).

Cambridge to King’s Cross has regular SDO at Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton. The 700/0s also now use SDO north of Ely as well.

I’m not sure how many 700/0s are booked on the Brighton route nowadays. Certainly pre-Covid it was common. It’s certainly not desirable that St Albans-Sutton, Luton-Rainham, Luton-Orpington etc don’t pass Three Bridges nor Hornsey. Having said that, wherever they put the main depot it wouldn’t be ideal.

 

[Bald Rick]

Theres actually spells of 21tph in the core now. For example the hour from 0742 at St Pancras southbound has 21 trains in it, with the 22nd at 0842 (and therefore in the next hour). Put another way, there are 18 headways at 150 second headways (including 10 on the bounce from 0755) plus 3 of 5 minutes, in one hour. The morning trains I usually catch are all in this period, and usually punctual, even the one that is the 10th of the 150 second stream. The timetable is very well designed to absorb minor late running approaching the core (of which there is much on Mondays - Thursdays). I‘ve no doubt that tomorrow I will spend a couple of minutes at TWH1023 to burn off the timetable allowances.

So to suggest that the core “barely manage(s) to squeeze 15 through“ is something that rhymes with rowlocks.

That this is done with only about half the drivers using ATO is, in my opinion, nothing short of a miracle. Once they are all trained (which one hopes will be in the next year) punctuality will improve and I would expect train 22 to come in, if not 23 and 24 yet.

 

[43066]

That this is done with only about half the drivers using ATO is, in my opinion, nothing short of a miracle. Once they are all trained (which one hopes will be in the next year) punctuality will improve and I would expect train 22 to come in, if not 23 and 24 yet.

Something I’ve observed in the core (especially on my trains home!) is that TL drivers often don’t dispatch strictly to time, in the sense of door closure 30 seconds before departure etc. I wonder whether that’s because they’re used to generous dwells in the core, but it’s (IMO) sloppy operating practice, and doesn’t bode well for 24 tph - not that it’s due anytime soon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Something I’ve observed in the core (especially on my trains home!) is that TL drivers often don’t dispatch strictly to time, in the sense of door closure 30 seconds before departure etc. I wonder whether that’s because they’re used to generous dwells in the core, but it’s (IMO) sloppy operating practice, and doesn’t bode well for 24 tph - not that it’s due anytime soon.

Almost certainly working off the WTT; every other train has a half minute departure time.

However, you make a very good point generally. I get so frustrated with trains not moving at ‘00’ from their origin when the signal has been off for 2 minutes and yet dispatch starts too late to enable an on time departure. Happened to me three times today alone, and in two cases it cost the trains concerned (collectively) more than ten failures to meet the on time measure. It’s just poor practice and there is no excuse. #rantover.

 

[Horizon22]

What was the initial plan for Thameslink trains through the core? Was it 24? Makes me wonder what kind of substances they are smoking at HQ, they can barely manage to squeeze 15 through and half of them are mostly late. Absolute clowns.

It was 24tph. The Ashford service is a good as dead though.

Elizabeth line has the same core frequencies on a similar length of two-track, albeit with different technology and fewer branches (the latter being the critical component). Also no industrial dispute currently there! And yes occasionally that has issues too but has the potential to be contained easier. For example I don't think Thameslink have the capacity to "sever" the core very easily into a 'Northern' and 'Southern' section during significant disruption and there appears to be a lot of crew and fleet demands which make running a contingency hard in practice.

I think Thameslink appears to be stretched quite far which means there isn't much slack available when it goes wrong.

 

[Bikeman78]

Almost certainly working off the WTT; every other train has a half minute departure time.

However, you make a very good point generally. I get so frustrated with trains not moving at ‘00’ from their origin when the signal has been off for 2 minutes and yet dispatch starts too late to enable an on time departure. Happened to me three times today alone, and in two cases it cost the trains concerned (collectively) more than ten failures to meet the on time measure. It’s just poor practice and there is no excuse. #rantover.

Why does it bother you, so long as it gets to the next station on time? Better than SWR where trains will frequently start moving 30 seconds early.

 

[yorkie]

Why does it bother you, so long as it gets to the next station on time? Better than SWR where trains will frequently start moving 30 seconds early.

I would imagine it's bothering for professional reasons rather than as an inconvenience to the journey being made!

 

[bramling]

I would imagine it's bothering for professional reasons rather than as an inconvenience to the journey being made!

It can still end up being an inconvenience to the journey, as a few of those half minutes during a journey can add up to a path across a junction being missed, or whatever, which then ends up being a more problematic delay.

 

[AM9]

It can still end up being an inconvenience to the journey, as a few of those half minutes during a journey can add up to a path across a junction being missed, or whatever, which then ends up being a more problematic delay.

For all it's faults, the railway is damned if it doesn't keep to time and now (lay) criticism of trying to leave on time.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Almost certainly working off the WTT; every other train has a half minute departure time.

However, you make a very good point generally. I get so frustrated with trains not moving at ‘00’ from their origin when the signal has been off for 2 minutes and yet dispatch starts too late to enable an on time departure. Happened to me three times today alone, and in two cases it cost the trains concerned (collectively) more than ten failures to meet the on time measure. It’s just poor practice and there is no excuse. #rantover.

Driver despatch is tens of second quicker than using platform despatchers who often are nowhere near the RA button so even with the doors shut they end losing even more seconds why the despatcher walks to the RA location.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does it bother you, so long as it gets to the next station on time? Better than SWR where trains will frequently start moving 30 seconds early.

Because the trains concerned do not get to the next station on time, that’s why.

I would imagine it's bothering for professional reasons rather than as an inconvenience to the journey being made!

I had a train today that left origin at bang on the “00”. Very satisfying. Ontime for the rest of the journey too!

 

[Class15]

Because the trains concerned do not get to the next station on time, that’s why.




I had a train today that left origin at bang on the “00”. Very satisfying. Ontime for the rest of the journey too!

I absolutely agree. This is what I find regularly on both Thameslink and the NLL.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You see, I still have to question the 180 minutes thing. Just this morning, a train rolls out of Farringdon and the next one is 8 minutes. By my calculations that's a lot more than 180 seconds. This isn't a one-off either, this happens frequently and this is in the 8am-9am period, at the very peak of peak time.

I think that's the thing. 20tph would be brilliant, if it was 20tph evenly spaced every 3 minutes. But it isn't - the scheduled timings are somewhat irregular so that you have longer gaps. And to make it worse, not all trains go to London Bridge - which I'd argue really ought to be considered part of the core from a passenger point of view (I realise it isn't from an operational point of view): It's a Zone 1 terminus where an awful lot of passengers are likely to be making connections. Add to that lower frequencies at weekends and you end up with a service that often isn't really turn-up-and-go at all

 

[sh24]

The 700 are fine apart from the bare bones Metro interior. The contrast with the low density, high comfort window aligned 2-2 seating on some of the Electrostars is stark.

 

[Benjwri]

Just to be absolutely clear, the theoretical maximum capacity is 30tph. 24tph is not as many seem to be suggesting pushing it to the limit, there would still be room for service recovery.

24tph is now possible in theory, the infrastructure is there, however this infrastructure wasn’t completed until the end of 2020, during Covid, and therefore 24tph has never happened.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Just to be absolutely clear, the theoretical maximum capacity is 30tph. 24tph is not as many seem to be suggesting pushing it to the limit, there would still be room for service recovery.

24tph is now possible in theory, the infrastructure is there, however this infrastructure wasn’t completed until the end of 2020, during Covid, and therefore 24tph has never happened.

The headway through the Thameslink core is 2 and a half minutes so the maximum planning capacity is 24tph. Not possible to fit more in.

 

[Magdalia]

Just to be absolutely clear, the theoretical maximum capacity is 30tph. 24tph is not as many seem to be suggesting pushing it to the limit, there would still be room for service recovery.

24tph is now possible in theory, the infrastructure is there, however this infrastructure wasn’t completed until the end of 2020, during Covid, and therefore 24tph has never happened.

The key words there are theoretical and in theory.

It isn't what happens in practice. On my homeward journeys to the Fens I have watched the evening peak at all of the core stations, while waiting for the next Cambridge train. If coming in from Sutton I get to see a full 30 minute cycle. Departures only 120 seconds after the previous train are rarely achieved, and never achieved repeatedly over long sequences of trains. In practice timetabled trains every 150 seconds do not leave room for service recovery.

 

[Bald Rick]

The key words there are theoretical and in theory.

It isn't what happens in practice. On my homeward journeys to the Fens I have watched the evening peak at all of the core stations, while waiting for the next Cambridge train. If coming in from Sutton I get to see a full 30 minute cycle. Departures only 120 seconds after the previous train are rarely achieved, and never achieved repeatedly over long sequences of trains. In practice timetabled trains every 150 seconds do not leave room for service recovery.

And thats because only about half the drivers (and thus trains they drive) are trained on ATO. When they are, 120 second headways will be much more common. As it happens my train hime yesterday arrived at St P 60 seconds after the previous service had departed (wheels start rolling). Had my train not been early, we could easily have left in under a minute of dwell, ie less than 120 seconds headway. (Yes, both services were in ATO).

I'd also note that the attempt to serve lots of mainline destinations also leaves stations between Kentish Town and Mill Hill Broadway with a (by London standards) rather poor service

You actually mean Cricklewood and Hendon. Both of which have 4 trains an hour each way, but also have relatively nearby tube stations.

In the standard off peak hour West Hampstead has 8 services each way, Brent Cross West and Mill Hill Broadway both have 6. There’s more in the peak to the last two.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And thats because only about half the drivers (and thus trains they drive) are trained on ATO. When they are, 120 second headways will be much more common.

Thanks for the explanation. I can't recall the exact date that the core started running with the new 20tph/ATO/etc. but it must be getting on for 10 years ago. Out of interest, do you know why it is taking so long to train the drivers to use it?

 

[Failed Unit]

Thanks for the explanation. I can't recall the exact date that the core started running with the new 20tph/ATO/etc. but it must be getting on for 10 years ago. Out of interest, do you know why it is taking so long to train the drivers to use it?

Lack of train crew and poor industrial management.

When you see what an impact an overtime ban has (50% service cut) then they are going to struggle with training. Training from what I understand is mainly done outside normal hours.

It is also the reason why the 15 minute metro isn’t coming back anytime soon - GTR can’t resource is.

 

[D7666]

Just to confirm above remarks, both 24 and 30 TPH are correct numbers.

24 TPH is the steady state Thameslink capacity where steady state means for a 3 h duration both ways in both peaks, all trains in correct sequence, junctions in what some would call NOOT (no out of turn) and so on, in other words, perfection.

30 TPH is the theoretical capacity during service recovery but not sustainable for long periods; ISTR it does require to be set up somehow AFAIK, not sure how, it does not happen without intervention although what that intervention is I do not now; and it does require ALL trains in both directions to be ATO - something that has not yet been achieved - and for flowing trains i.e. not bunched up into queues - it literally is service recovery after whatever the perturbation was has been cleared. The problem of course IS bunched trains are always there after an incident.

EDIT Actually it migh have been 28 or 32 TPH; either way there is a 'over drive' bigger than 24 TPH.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Just to confirm above remarks, both 24 and 30 TPH are correct numbers.

24 TPH is the steady state Thameslink capacity where steady state means for a 3 h duration both ways in both peaks, all trains in correct sequence, junctions in what some would call NOOT (no out of turn) and so on, in other words, perfection.

30 TPH is the theoretical capacity during service recovery but not sustainable for long periods; ISTR it does require to be set up somehow AFAIK, not sure how, it does not happen without intervention although what that intervention is I do not now; and it does require ALL trains in both directions to be ATO - something that has not yet been achieved - and for flowing trains i.e. not bunched up into queues - it literally is service recovery after whatever the perturbation was has been cleared. The problem of course IS bunched trains are always there after an incident.

Trains not in ATO are 10-15s later into the station if checked outside as drivers largely don't use the closing up signals as well as being more cautious coming up the platform so you would have thought getting all drivers ATO approved would be a worthwhile contributor to performance.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't recall the exact date that the core started running with the new 20tph/ATO/etc. but it must be getting on for 10 years ago.

The first in passenger service was 6 years ago, but that was a one off. Routinely in passenger service was in 2019.

Out of interest, do you know why it is taking so long to train the drivers to use it?

Yes, but not for posting here.

Just to confirm above remarks, both 24 and 30 TPH are correct numbers.

24 TPH is the steady state Thameslink capacity where steady state means for a 3 h duration both ways in both peaks, all trains in correct sequence, junctions in what some would call NOOT (no out of turn) and so on, in other words, perfection.

30 TPH is the theoretical capacity during service recovery but not sustainable for long periods; ISTR it does require to be set up somehow AFAIK, not sure how, it does not happen without intervention although what that intervention is I do not now; and it does require ALL trains in both directions to be ATO - something that has not yet been achieved - and for flowing trains i.e. not bunched up into queues - it literally is service recovery after whatever the perturbation was has been cleared. The problem of course IS bunched trains are always there after an incident.

EDIT Actually it migh have been 28 or 32 TPH; either way there is a 'over drive' bigger than 24 TPH.

It’s 24 and 30, or more accurately, 150 sec headways and 120 sec headways. And no, nothing has to be ‘set up’ to enable the latter. It happens every day.

Trains not in ATO are 10-15s later into the station if checked outside as drivers largely don't use the closing up signals as well as being more cautious coming up the platform so you would have thought getting all drivers ATO approved would be a worthwhile contributor to performance.

It’s about 30 seconds later, regardless of them being checked or not.

 

[Bikeman78]

Because the trains concerned do not get to the next station on time, that’s why.

How late are they shutting the doors then? The process usually only takes 15 seconds or so. I couldn't guarantee that my watch is that accurate.

 

[Bald Rick]

How late are they shutting the doors then? The process usually only takes 15 seconds or so. I couldn't guarantee that my watch is that accurate.

It varies.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It varies.

Its always quicker than platform dispatch thats for sure