Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[AM9]

although the seats are quite firm, they are at a good pitch so, yes they seem good on posture.

I still believe on longer journeys numb-bum occurs, and the ride quality of this type of stock isnt great so you can feel the ride over points etc through your spine.

I just dont understand why we have gone away from sprung seats.....

the early 377 2x2 seating have sprung seats even, but the 377/2, /4s, /5s and onwards don't and its noticable.

I just feel like its a dumbing down of journey quality overall..... and the lack of tables etc etc on 700s is yet another dumbing down.

My final point on 700s lack of seats (for a while hopefully) is that i drove an East Grinstead to London Bridge the other day (which will eventually be 700s) and a large number of people had a cup of coffee in their hands... and were carrying laptops and tablets... (im talking about 60 odd people at upper warlingham alone)

Everyone of these people will people will have an issue come the 700s.

The whole debate about the inadequacy of class 700 seats seems to be coming from those who regularly get seats on current services. With the expected increases in passenger numbers, those who get on these trains near their country-end origins will probably still get seats but those who might currently be lucky when boarding at the busier stations nearer London, may not even be able to get on the trains unless their overall capacity is increased. So they will be grateful for accommodation that has much increased capacity.
Many of the complaints expressed by posters on this forum seem to be soley concerned about their personal travel experience, not recognising that the railway is a public transport system, and as such it caters for a group of travellers rather than a particular subset them. Thus within such budget as is available to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock, the best fit for all passengers is what the DfT are obliged to oversee. I am just a leisure traveller, so have no selfish interest in the balance of peak capacity, - standing or seated on Thameslink, or whether there is something to put a cup of coffee on, - only that if the paths are truly maxed out with maximum length trains, then those that run must be fit for purpose.

 

[bramling]

The whole debate about the inadequacy of class 700 seats seems to be coming from those who regularly get seats on current services. With the expected increases in passenger numbers, those who get on these trains near their country-end origins will probably still get seats but those who might currently be lucky when boarding at the busier stations nearer London, may not even be able to get on the trains unless their overall capacity is increased. So they will be grateful for accommodation that has much increased capacity.
Many of the complaints expressed by posters on this forum seem to be soley concerned about their personal travel experience, not recognising that the railway is a public transport system, and as such it caters for a group of travellers rather than a particular subset them. Thus within such budget as is available to invest in infrastructure and rolling stock, the best fit for all passengers is what the DfT are obliged to oversee. I am just a leisure traveller, so have no selfish interest in the balance of peak capacity, - standing or seated on Thameslink, or whether there is something to put a cup of coffee on, - only that if the paths are truly maxed out with maximum length trains, then those that run must be fit for purpose.

That's all well and good, and I don't disagree in principle.

However, the Great Northern route is generally *not* at that point, and in most cases is not even close, despite virtually all services still 8-car. Compared to other routes standing is minimal, and crush loading is basically non-existant - bar during exceptional events or one particular morning up service which is still just a 4-car. (By far the worst overcrowding is on the Hertford-Moorgate route).

I travelled out of King's Cross between 1700 and 1800 today, in my carriage approx 20 percent of the seats were free. Last week on a slightly later departure I had four seats to myself all the way. These were both 8-car trains.

Were it not for the core loading times issue, a 365-spec interior for the 700s operating GN services, especially the 12-cars, would have been just fine. Likewise a 377 interior, perhaps with a slightly wider gangway.

The class 700 may be, more or less, the right solution for Thameslink. However which ever way one looks at it Thameslink is not the best solution for Great Northern.

 

[Bald Rick]

The class 700 may be, more or less, the right solution for Thameslink. However which ever way one looks at it Thameslink is not the best solution for Great Northern.

That might be the case now, but come December 2018, you'll need the 700s on the GN.

Firstly to have common stock in the core

Secondly to deal with expected growth on the GN. Which will be stellar.

 

[AM9]

That's all well and good, and I don't disagree in principle.

However, the Great Northern route is generally *not* at that point, and in most cases is not even close, despite virtually all services still 8-car. Compared to other routes standing is minimal, and crush loading is basically non-existant - bar during exceptional events or one particular morning up service which is still just a 4-car. (By far the worst overcrowding is on the Hertford-Moorgate route).

I travelled out of King's Cross between 1700 and 1800 today, in my carriage approx 20 percent of the seats were free. Last week on a slightly later departure I had four seats to myself all the way. These were both 8-car trains.

Were it not for the core loading times issue, a 365-spec interior for the 700s operating GN services, especially the 12-cars, would have been just fine. Likewise a 377 interior, perhaps with a slightly wider gangway.

The class 700 may be, more or less, the right solution for Thameslink. However which ever way one looks at it Thameslink is not the best solution for Great Northern.

From what you say, there is a level of overprovision on the GN route although of course it may be a characteristic of pre-Christmas flows.
In terms of the forthcoming GN core services, it would seem that somewhere, the loading of movements on Kings Cross station itself has been assessed as heavy, and likely to become critical not too far in the future. If that doesn't happen and Kings Cross bucks the trend, there will be lighter loading on TL GN trains, and the relative balance between the two northern routes will adjusted. I imagine that, as for (original) Thameslink, the sheer convenience of not having to change at Kings Cross/St Pancras will generate much extra demand, especially when Crossrail opens and Farringdon becomes the foremost interchange station north of the City.
As for the suitablility of stock on each part of the north of London Thameslink lines, the problem is that it would be chaotic having mixed stock in the core in the effect on dwell times and the lack of operational flexibility. Still, we are where we are and the overall Thameslink plan makes sense as a high density network lying somewhere between a Crossrail type route and an inter-regional arrangement. Maybe, if there is a clamour against the changes, by the time the current TSGN franchise has run its course, the structure defined by the next ITTs may create a competitive situation on the GN lines, giving travellers a choice of different fare options for different rolling stock types.

 

[po8crg]

A few points:

1. TL services will be more attractive than GN services terminating at KGX; for instance, from Cambridge to the City, the GA service to Liverpool Street, in spite of being slower to "London Terminals", is usually better as much of the City is in walking distance of Liverpool Street - so Liverpool Street is faster, avoids the rush-hour Tube, and saves the price of a Z1 travelcard/Oyster fare. A TL service to City Thameslink is going to be a similar distance from the office, and faster. Passengers switching from busy GA services to (apparently) quiet GN ones is good for the railway as a whole (and for the Tube). Similar arguments apply to switching from GA to Stratford and Jubilee to Canary Wharf to TL to Farringdon and Crossrail to Canary Wharf - King's Cross to Canary Wharf is an awful journey.

2. 700s, relative to a similar length 365/378, exchange 100 or so seats for 300+ standing spaces. If you're one of the hundred people who used to get a seat and now has to stand, then that sucks; if you're one of the 200 who used to get left behind and now gets on, it's great.

3. There are still more than enough seats for everyone travelling off-peak to get one.

Personally, I can't use seat-back tables - they're too low and I'm too tall - so I can't really comment on whether they have any value. As for the comfort of the seats, well they'll be better than a 142 or a 150, won't they? Up here, the 319s have been a major upgrade in comfort.

 

[Fincra5]

They don't when they are absolutely packed with standees clogging up the aisle.

If a 700 takes over a LIT to LBG (and onwards to Bedford etc) in the morning peak, a 12 car 377 is often standing by Haywards Heath. I'd reckon with a 700 its full by Hove.

Can't imagine the pax are gonna be any happier with the service.

 

[LBSCR Times]

If a 700 takes over a LIT to LBG (and onwards to Bedford etc) in the morning peak, a 12 car 377 is often standing by Haywards Heath. I'd reckon with a 700 its full by Hove.

Can't imagine the pax are gonna be any happier with the service.

Yesterday morning they were looking for seats at Hove.....!!

 

[The Box Photter]

Yep, the trains are a bad joke to be foisted on the travelling public by Whitehall Mandarins and evil corporate greed.

Its bad enough now that the busiest morning peak train from Bedford into London is now formed of 3x387s. The section beneath the pantograph on each unit contains a squash-court sized "accessible" toilet with flashing "out of service" light and an adjacent area with hardly any seats (presumably for the masses of wheelchair using commuters who can negotiate the two flights of stairs at Flitwick to gain access to platform 3). Some passengers who used to be able to get a seat at Luton now have to stand and most of the joiners at Harpenden are now getting used to the idea of never getting a seat. There will be no difference for St Albans passengers when the new trains enter service, apart from having more room to waive around their iPads and £5 cups of coffee.

If this is the shape of things to come, retirement can't come soon enough.

Every passenger survey carried out shows that passengers would like TO SIT DOWN on their journeys. How can a train with fewer seats than the one it is replacing be an improvement in passenger comfort?

 

[physics34]

Yep, the trains are a bad joke to be foisted on the travelling public by Whitehall Mandarins and evil corporate greed.

Its bad enough now that the busiest morning peak train from Bedford into London is now formed of 3x387s. The section beneath the pantograph on each unit contains a squash-court sized "accessible" toilet with flashing "out of service" light and an adjacent area with hardly any seats (presumably for the masses of wheelchair using commuters who can negotiate the two flights of stairs at Flitwick to gain access to platform 3). Some passengers who used to be able to get a seat at Luton now have to stand and most of the joiners at Harpenden are now getting used to the idea of never getting a seat. There will be no difference for St Albans passengers when the new trains enter service, apart from having more room to waive around their iPads and £5 cups of coffee.

If this is the shape of things to come, retirement can't come soon enough.

Every passenger survey carried out shows that passengers would like TO SIT DOWN on their journeys. How can a train with fewer seats than the one it is replacing be an improvement in passenger comfort?

there will be a net gain in the amount of seats ON THAT ROUTE... (i think!).
Some other routes will suffer though.

 

[gtr driver]

Yep, the trains are a bad joke to be foisted on the travelling public by Whitehall Mandarins and evil corporate greed.

Its bad enough now that the busiest morning peak train from Bedford into London is now formed of 3x387s. The section beneath the pantograph on each unit contains a squash-court sized "accessible" toilet with flashing "out of service" light and an adjacent area with hardly any seats (presumably for the masses of wheelchair using commuters who can negotiate the two flights of stairs at Flitwick to gain access to platform 3). Some passengers who used to be able to get a seat at Luton now have to stand and most of the joiners at Harpenden are now getting used to the idea of never getting a seat. There will be no difference for St Albans passengers when the new trains enter service, apart from having more room to waive around their iPads and £5 cups of coffee.

If this is the shape of things to come, retirement can't come soon enough.

Every passenger survey carried out shows that passengers would like TO SIT DOWN on their journeys. How can a train with fewer seats than the one it is replacing be an improvement in passenger comfort?

More and more people are commuting. The U.K. loading gauge is what it is so we can't make the trains wider or taller. We are reaching the limits of train length already without massive physical alterations to stations that are so expensive as to be permanently unaffordable. We cannot fit more trains in without new signalling systems or new lines which again has affordability limitations. The law dictates an accessible toilet or no toilet at all. Therefore the only way to fit more and more passengers in is to have less seats. All the evidence suggests that even if people can't get on the trains let alone sit down it will not deter them from commuting. What would you suggest?

 

[Class377/5]

there will be a net gain in the amount of seats ON THAT ROUTE... (i think!).
Some other routes will suffer though.

Overlooked that those complaining will see increased tph with longer trains yet can't understand how capacity, both seated and unseated, is increased. Oh and Thameslink isn't to deal 2015 capacity problems but 2020 and 2030. Core stations are designed to keep up passenger numbers in 50 years time using actual today's passenger numbers and not personal opinions.

 

[Bald Rick]

There will be no difference for St Albans passengers when the new trains enter service, apart from having more room to waive around their iPads and £5 cups of coffee.

£2.30 actually

Sent from my iPad

 

[physics34]

£2.30 actually

Sent from my iPad

lol.....

 

[southern442]

Overlooked that those complaining will see increased tph with longer trains yet can't understand how capacity, both seated and unseated, is increased. Oh and Thameslink isn't to deal 2015 capacity problems but 2020 and 2030. Core stations are designed to keep up passenger numbers in 50 years time using actual today's passenger numbers and not personal opinions.

I seriously doubt that Thameslink will deal with current problems, let alone 2020 or 2030 capacity problems. Removing seats creates space but surely there has to be another way to solve capacity issues rather than remove all the seats so there can be 120 people per millimetre squared of floor space?

 

[bramling]

I seriously doubt that Thameslink will deal with current problems, let alone 2020 or 2030 capacity problems. Removing seats creates space but surely there has to be another way to solve capacity issues rather than remove all the seats so there can be 120 people per millimetre squared of floor space?

The whole concept will become a dismal failure if the mix of service patterns and networks causes performance to fall to unacceptable levels. That would most certainly become politically unacceptable.

Of course, if Thameslink was so serious about providing capacity to deal with such future growth, the whole class 700 fleet would be 12-car. As it is, plenty of 8-car trains, services and platforms will remain. This is one aspect those excited by Thameslink tend to keep quiet about.

Thameslink should have been a means of providing additional services, capacity and journey opportunities - not a total replacement for existing services at many locations.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well I consider that the current Thameslink services have very few trains formed as twelve coaches. The fact that 55 out of 115 units are twelve coaches long means that roughly half the services are unavoidably twelve cars long and also the remaining other half (roughly) will never be shorter than eight coaches. That is a huge increase in number of carriages. I assume that even with a drastic reduction in seats there will still be the same or more seats going in/out of London. I am sure that there was not justification to pay for all the trains to be twelve coaches but I wonder if it would have been better to have routed more twelve car Victoria and/or London Bridge services into the Thameslink core ?. This might have not found balancing requirements to the North and of course the Wimbledon loop does perhaps provide a more water tight route to send late running services round. I can see Kings Cross being pressed into service when a late running service comes along the Great Northern !.

The only exception I can see is where a new twelve coach train is replacing an old twelve coach train. As above this is not very significant for existing Thameslink services BUT it does get noticeable if any existing twelve coach services to/from Kings Cross or Southern stations are re-routed into the Thameslink core.

My belief is that the best way to address the capacity needs of public transport into London is to divert existing routes into tunnels under central London as this will effectively provide a CONVENIENT alternative to the underground for many passengers. I also think the underground is more congested than most surface lines. The fact that the Victoria line platforms at Victoria are often (always) closed n the morning peak due to overcrowding tends to suggest to me that the underground is coping less well than the surface lines.

So more cross London lines are required. I remember seeing the RER lines in Paris back in 1986 (or before iirc). So far we only have Thameslink but it is more than nothing. I do worry that we are spending a lot of money tinkering with something that already achieves much. So is Thameslink going to be too complicated ?. Perhaps the money would have been better spent on another Crossrail using tunnels to further out of London ?.

 

[tsr]

So more cross London lines are required. I remember seeing the RER lines in Paris back in 1986 (or before iirc). So far we only have Thameslink but it is more than nothing. I do worry that we are spending a lot of money tinkering with something that already achieves much. So is Thameslink going to be too complicated ?. Perhaps the money would have been better spent on another Crossrail using tunnels to further out of London ?.

We already have other cross-London lines. The WLL and ELL. They originally didn't really feel like central London routes, and they aren't as such, but they are increasingly crucial and feel just like Zone 1 in terms of crowds, even when they mostly aren't. In fact, for current metro-style operations, arguably these are currently more important than Thameslink, with that only changing or equalising once TL goes to the higher frequencies in the core.

Of course, because Crossrail will be the first E-W route capable of running onto heavy rail routes after passing anywhere close to central London, this is a real game-changer. Its link with Thameslink will create a proper hub at Farringdon which, along with St Pancras, London Bridge and the airports, will hopefully make the complicated funnelling of trains through the Core well worth it from that point of view alone. TL is under-utilised to provide shorter-distance metro-style ops at present in some ways, and resolution should be a good use of funds in and of itself.

This is not to say that this will always be a good thing for longer-distance passengers, who, after all, are basically getting very long Tube trains with toilets and a small bit of First Class. In other words... a little like a big Met line with some niceties?

Unless there are major interchanges which will drastically alter things, I do see the route and provision for other Crossrails as not exactly off-topic but a bit overreaching for TL Programme discussion. Maybe that's just me.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Controversial but... playing Devil's Advocate...

What problem is the upcoming 'let's divert outer-suburban GN services away from Kings Cross and pour them into the already congested and unreliable Thameslink core' actually trying to solve ?

Is any GN commuter heading for Zone 1 stations really going to see a significant improvement in their end-to-end journey time ?

Current situation:
Access to Circle/H&C/Met/Northern lines - available with short walk at KX
Access to Victoria/Piccadilly lines - available with short walk at KX (OR at Finsbury Park if the GN train calls there)
Access to 'core' Thameslink Stations - available via a short walk between KX and St Pancras (and in London Bridge's case, also via Northern Line as above)

To the non-rail traveller, it must appear - in terms of the GN side only - that huge sums of money are being spent just so some GN commuters can save, what, 10 minutes walking time on their commute?

And if things are not running smoothly, and the train leaves Finsbury Park and gets held on the approaches to, or inside, Canal Tunnels, how is this better than the current situation? If everyone on board has access to real-time train-running info on smartphone apps, and sees (well before getting to Finsbury Park) that staying aboard may be likely to delay them getting to their desired location, will Finsbury Park be able to cope with hoards of people baling out and heading for the 2 spiral staircases there, to gain access to the tube ? When the core is in meltdown, many GN commuters will be using Finsbury Park as a quasi-terminus of the GN route.

We all saw last Christmas the chaos at Finsbury Park when Network Rail tried to make it a temporary 'terminus' - and that was when, supposedly, fewer people than usual were travelling !!

 

[jopsuk]

Connecting the GN to Thameslink is partly because there's a desire to run more trains into the core from the south (adding more services/reducing pressure on the south side terminals). The sheer volume of trains that it is planned to run into the core from that side would overwhelm the MML.

However, there's also an awful lot of Kings Cross commuters go to the City or London Bridge. yes, the change is a short walk there, but actually getting on a peak time Underground or Thameslink is not a simple matter. Having through trains removes that problem. A friend of mine used to commute Cambridge-London Bridge. The mainline train wasn't exactly fun, but trying to get onto the Northern Line she described as hellish.

You're not wrong about Finsbury Park being badly incapable of dealing with perturbation, but fixing it really needs most of the site excavated to Underground level and rebuilt with wide shafts (with escalators and lifts) throughout. The surface station could do with being three wide islands- one for down Moorgate and Thameslink, a central one on the fasts that's really just for engineering and emergency use, and one for up Moorgate and Thameslink. Sadly shutting the entire GN and Seven Sisters & Stroud Green Rd for any length of time is not feasible!

 

[The Box Photter]

Overlooked that those complaining will see increased tph with longer trains yet can't understand how capacity, both seated and unseated, is increased. Oh and Thameslink isn't to deal 2015 capacity problems but 2020 and 2030. Core stations are designed to keep up passenger numbers in 50 years time using actual today's passenger numbers and not personal opinions.

I can't see any improvement in the number or frequency of trains per hour in the peak periods that match my need to get to work by 09.00 in the publicity that's already been issued.

As I've said, putting on a few more 12 car trains at around 06.00 or after 08.30 might increase the overall number of seats available. But if the trains aren't running at the times people need to travel, the additional capacity is redundant.

As a passenger, I'm not really excited about "unseated capacity". All I see is the prospect of being in close proximity with another passenger's groin, backside, backpack or Michael Kors handbag for longer during my commute

I realise that if you're a transport planner or someone with a vested (financial) interest in pushing these nasty crush-loading monstrosities onto the railway the term "unseated capacity" becomes very important. Think about what it really means in the real world. It means more passengers standing for longer distances, paying more of their net income for a poorer "journey experience".

 

[asylumxl]

Connecting the GN to Thameslink is partly because there's a desire to run more trains into the core from the south (adding more services/reducing pressure on the south side terminals). The sheer volume of trains that it is planned to run into the core from that side would overwhelm the MML.

I'd not say that's partly the reason, I'd say it's the main reason. While running trains through the core does have its benefits for users north of St Pancras, they're more just an afterthought.

You only have to look at the situation when **** hits the fan to see where TLs priority is. Bedford trains are turned back at Blackfriars and you don't see a Bedford train for quite some time. If there's a broken down train in the core (as there was earlier this week), trains heading south are given priority and routed on the line usually used for northbound services.

The BedPan route might as well be a 50 mile long turn back siding.

 

[bramling]

I'd not say that's partly the reason, I'd say it's the main reason. While running trains through the core does have its benefits for users north of St Pancras, they're more just an afterthought.

You only have to look at the situation when **** hits the fan to see where TLs priority is. Bedford trains are turned back at Blackfriars and you don't see a Bedford train for quite some time. If there's a broken down train in the core (as there was earlier this week), trains heading south are given priority and routed on the line usually used for northbound services.

The BedPan route might as well be a 50 mile long turn back siding.

This sums up one of the big concerns about performance.

The Midland is simple, from Thameslink's point of view it has two basic service patterns - all stations to St Albans/Luton, and fast to St Albans then all stations to Bedford. The only issue is the need for the latter group to use the fast lines to pass the former group. Once you've achieved that (which can cause enough problems at times) everything slots together more or less. Meanwhile you can adjust the service for recovery purposes without upsetting too many people as both services are every 15 minutes, and also Luton Harpended and St Albans passengers can get a slow train if pushed, and some destinations also have EMT. Despite this, we read on here often enough how Midland passengers find Thameslink's service awful and unreliable. Wasn't FCC one of the most unpopular TOCs at one point? I don't believe the latter was down to the GN side as I always found that well run.

The Great Northern is a completely different game. The mix of service patterns is much more complex, and just a few minutes late running can cause chaos to several services. Between Hitchin and Cambridge there is a long double-track section with 7 intermediate stations (8 on the up including Hitchin). Some services won't stop at any of these, others will stop at all of them. Meanwhile you have some services which will run fast from Potters Bar to Hatfield, whilst the Moorgate trains stop at two intermediate stations - both sharing the same line. This is in addition to bottlenecks like Welwyn and Hitchin. North of Ely there are two single-line sections which will also act as a magnifier for late running. Today this works reasonably well in the down direction because everything leaves King's cross on time, even then signal checks around Welwyn, between PB and Hatfield, between Knebworth and Hitchin, at Hitchin, or on the Cambridge line, are still common. The effect of late-running off the Southern will be hurrendous. Add in that the proposed Tjameslink GN services are all half-hourly (unlike Thameslink on the Midland) and you will introduce a lot of inconvenience for passengers when things are not bang on time. Just look at Thameslink today to see how common this is.

 

[Julia]

However, there's also an awful lot of Kings Cross commuters go to the City or London Bridge. yes, the change is a short walk there, but actually getting on a peak time Underground or Thameslink is not a simple matter. Having through trains removes that problem. A friend of mine used to commute Cambridge-London Bridge. The mainline train wasn't exactly fun, but trying to get onto the Northern Line she described as hellish.

Quite. For five years I did SNO - KGX and then cycled to LBG most of the time. On average you'd take 3-4 trains on the Northern line before being able to get on; the Victoria was much the same and the Circle was little better. The shortness of the walk from the mainline is pretty irrelevant.

(Of course a big factor in the madness is housing policy; the fact that noone on a sensible wage can live in zone 1, probably not even zone 2, because of "executive" housing being built everywhere and then being sold abroad to buy-to-keep-empty investors who don't give a toss about what happens to us. )

 

[Bald Rick]

You only have to look at the situation when **** hits the fan to see where TLs priority is. Bedford trains are turned back at Blackfriars and you don't see a Bedford train for quite some time. If there's a broken down train in the core (as there was earlier this week), trains heading south are given priority and routed on the line usually used for northbound services.

Sorry that's not correct. TLs priority is the north, simply because there are other options for southbound passengers.

I too was a little confused about why a southbound train ran bidi on the northbound line last week when the southbound train failed at City. On investigation it was the only way to get trains out of the way to clear the failure.

It's rare to see a Bedford bound train spun at Blackfriars in the peaks - I can't remember seeing it done in the peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Controversial but... playing Devil's Advocate...

What problem is the upcoming 'let's divert outer-suburban GN services away from Kings Cross and pour them into the already congested and unreliable Thameslink core' actually trying to solve ?

1) improve cross London connections
2) relieve the Circle / Met / H&C lines KX to Liverpool St
3) relieve the Northern line Kentish Town to Londin Bridge
4) reduce journey times for GN passengers (10 minutes is a LOT)
5) improve central London distribution, which relieves the terminii of passenger congestion
6) provide a direct link for GN passengers to Crossrail

The cost of the GN element of the Thameslink project is actually a relatively small proportion of the total - 2 tunnels and a few platform extensions (which may well have happened anyway). And the country needed new electric trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

1) improve cross London connections
2) relieve the Circle / Met / H&C lines KX to Liverpool St
3) relieve the Northern line Kentish Town to Londin Bridge
4) reduce journey times for GN passengers (10 minutes is a LOT)
5) improve central London distribution, which relieves the terminii of passenger congestion
6) provide a direct link for GN passengers to Crossrail

They'll have to put it back on the tube map for that lot...

 

[asylumxl]

Sorry that's not correct. TLs priority is the north, simply because there are other options for southbound passengers.

I too was a little confused about why a southbound train ran bidi on the northbound line last week when the southbound train failed at City. On investigation it was the only way to get trains out of the way to clear the failure.

It's rare to see a Bedford bound train spun at Blackfriars in the peaks - I can't remember seeing it done in the peak.

Well it's not done at the drop of a hat, but certainly does happen. A few weeks back a Bedford train was put in to the bays at Blackfriars rather than run north, as it was the train I originally planned to get. When I go back to work after Christmas I'll keep track

While there may be other options, I'm certainly not the only one to feel that way. Just sit at Blackfriars waiting for a north bound train when there are delays, plenty of announcements for services on 1 and silence on 2.

 

[Bald Rick]

While there may be other options, I'm certainly not the only one to feel that way. Just sit at Blackfriars waiting for a north bound train when there are delays, plenty of announcements for services on 1 and silence on 2.

I feel that way too - but then I only ever wait on platform 2 to go home; so that is my perspective.

I'm reliably assured by friends who head south from Blackfriars that when there's disruption it feels like there are a load of trains heading northbound and nothing coming south. And they have they worry of a short notice platform from change to 3 or 4.

 

[tsr]

I feel that way too - but then I only ever wait on platform 2 to go home; so that is my perspective.

I'm reliably assured by friends who head south from Blackfriars that when there's disruption it feels like there are a load of trains heading northbound and nothing coming south. And they have they worry of a short notice platform from change to 3 or 4.

The good thing about being at Blackfriars and heading South is that you can be relatively sure there will be a Southbound service if it is advertised within 10-15 minutes beforehand as running, even if it's hideously late, providing lines are open and the power changeover works. Nobody in their right mind will terminate anything between West Hampstead and Blackfriars without seriously good reason. Yes, it may be amended, but you've always got the option of getting out of London and changing at Tulse Hill / East Croydon / Gatwick Airport (and whilst that can be horrible, at least you're moving).

Heading North, there are quite a few routes a train can take to get to you, even if it only has a choice of a couple of destinations (West Hampstead / Luton area / Bedford), or of course a termination is a tad easier due to the bays right where all the routes effectively join up, rather than half way down and used by another TOC as at St Pancras. I always find the information is less accurate going North because those trains could get stuck at a million different signals in South London, or behind a train waiting crew at Selhurst, or due to points failure at Tulse Hill, or they could be diverted to London Bridge... etc. For you this is stating the obvious, but I find it's a useful explainer on the rare occasion I happen to be going North from Blackfriars and someone asks.

On the other hand, you always know when directing passengers North during disruption to Southern, that if it is humanly possible, TL Control will get a train at least as far as Blackfriars, where there are a number of useful journey options East-West. Hence why I agree Crossrail is so very important as a next step, and also partly why it's such a dilemma choosing what terminates at Blackfriars in the timetable from 2018 onwards.

 

[AM9]

I seriously doubt that Thameslink will deal with current problems, let alone 2020 or 2030 capacity problems. Removing seats creates space but surely there has to be another way to solve capacity issues rather than remove all the seats so there can be 120 people per millimetre squared of floor space?

Ignoring the hyperbole (or error) in the passenger standing density figure, some posts in this thread keep coming back to the '... there has to be another way to solve capacity issues ...'. OK the floor is yours, so please suggest some ways, as not only would we all here like a sensible discussion on maximising capacity within sane budget levels, it may even grab the attention of any passing TOC, NR or DfT reader passing by.
I for one would find a serious discussion on any options very interesting, provided it didn't degenerate into arguments slanted to promote the claims of 'terrible' conditions for a relatively few passengers.

 

[jon0844]

One way would be to extend all platforms on the ECML to take 12 car trains and then run many more trains on an all stations basis every few minutes. That would solve the capacity issues, but at a high price on the time taken from Peterborough or Cambridge and beyond!

You might get a few fast trains down the fast lines where available but not many.