Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Peter Sarf]

II must admit I am assuming that in the not too distant future many/all of the 8-car 700s will get lengthened to 10-car or preferably 12-car. I hope more routes will get platforms lengthened, in the not too distant future, to allow for twelve car running. That seems to me to be very likely on Great Northern but on the South side of the Thames the Wimbledon loop would need doing to provide a balance I suspect.

So my question is :- How many years could a decision be safely delayed before building more coaches for these new 700s would become impossible ?.

 

[gtr driver]

II must admit I am assuming that in the not too distant future many/all of the 8-car 700s will get lengthened to 10-car or preferably 12-car. I hope more routes will get platforms lengthened, in the not too distant future, to allow for twelve car running. That seems to me to be very likely on Great Northern but on the South side of the Thames the Wimbledon loop would need doing to provide a balance I suspect.

So my question is :- How many years could a decision be safely delayed before building more coaches for these new 700s would become impossible ?.

I can't see Tulse Hill ever being extended due to the road bridges and rail junctions and tunnel hemming it in. Some of the platforms are barely 8 cars now. And the stations on the Tattenham branch and the Wimbledon loop would need to see a massive rise in passenger numbers to justify it I suspect. Another good reason to have left Wimbledon out of it as those trains could have been sent somewhere that might have supported 12 car trains without issue. At least Tattenham makes operational sense.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can't see Tulse Hill ever being extended due to the road bridges and rail junctions and tunnel hemming it in. Some of the platforms are barely 8 cars now. And the stations on the Tattenham branch and the Wimbledon loop would need to see a massive rise in passenger numbers to justify it I suspect. Another good reason to have left Wimbledon out of it as those trains could have been sent somewhere that might have supported 12 car trains without issue. At least Tattenham makes operational sense.

Thats my fear - those 8-car Southern routes are too impractical and possibly with not enough demand. I suppose Tattenham Corner must be nearer to 12-car possibility although I guess the longest formed services that way are only 10-car until they split at Purley ?.

 

[bramling]

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.

A reduced Thameslink service off the ECML, with some services running to KX. Put the 8-car and open-access services into Platforms 9-11 at KX and make all other services 12-car where needed.

I would also look at spending some money easing a few capacity constraints on the ECML. Extend Potters Bar, Hatfield, WGC, Welwyn North and Knebworth to 12 cars, and look at whether providing a short 4-track section on the Cambridge line somewhere round Ashwell or Meldreth could be useful.

Also look at whether some of the slow Welwyn (or even Hertford) services might be more suited to Thameslink, or look at whether Thameslink services could terminate from the south at Finsbury Park and reverse via the Hornsey sidings and Harringay viaduct.

 

[LLivery]

I can't see Tulse Hill ever being extended due to the road bridges and rail junctions and tunnel hemming it in. Some of the platforms are barely 8 cars now. And the stations on the Tattenham branch and the Wimbledon loop would need to see a massive rise in passenger numbers to justify it I suspect. Another good reason to have left Wimbledon out of it as those trains could have been sent somewhere that might have supported 12 car trains without issue. At least Tattenham makes operational sense.

Precisely why I don't understand Tattenhams being part of Thameslink instead of the Caterhams. London Bridge to Caterham via Sydenham trains are far more busy.

 

[swt_passenger]

... or look at whether Thameslink services could terminate from the south at Finsbury Park and reverse via the Hornsey sidings and Harringay viaduct.

The 2018 map already confirms Thameslink off peak services on the route between between Caterham and WGC terminating at Finsbury Park, logically reversing at Hornsey would be the way it would be done.

 

[jopsuk]

The 2018 map already confirms Thameslink off peak services on the route between between Caterham and WGC terminating at Finsbury Park, logically reversing at Hornsey would be the way it would be done.

Which 2018 map are you working from? There's many

 

[OxtedL]

This is the standard map circulating since May 2014, which seems to be the most recent and authoritative version. I've had to link it via the Internet Archive as the original link from the Thameslink programme site was taken down at some point this year - I can't see a replacement and I don't expect to find one...

In particular, the difficult to understand colour coding suggests that at that point Caterham to Finsbury Park was expected to operate in both directions during the peak only, extended to Welwyn Garden City in the peak direction.

 

[gtr driver]

Thats my fear - those 8-car Southern routes are too impractical and possibly with not enough demand. I suppose Tattenham Corner must be nearer to 12-car possibility although I guess the longest formed services that way are only 10-car until they split at Purley ?.

Well I imagine there's demand for 8 in the peaks on the Wimbledon loop but not 12, and I'd be surprised if Tattenham would ever support 12. From my reading of things passengers at the Tattenham end are more likely to go to Epsom and at the Purley end to the likes of Coulsdon South or Purley itself. I do wonder if more might use it when they realise there's likely to be spare capacity at all times on the route compared to the other ones in the area. Depends on how much they value speed versus comfort I suppose. Even when the next train is minutes behind and possibly emptier they go all out to cram on to the one that is already there. Currently the longest trains are indeed 10 cars, either splitting 5+5 or 6+4 and that seems to be sufficient from Purley onwards.

 

[swt_passenger]

Which 2018 map are you working from? There's many

The one GoVia put out when they won the franchise:
http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1254/Proposed 2018 Thameslink service pattern.pdf

 

[southern442]

Precisely why I don't understand Tattenhams being part of Thameslink instead of the Caterhams. London Bridge to Caterham via Sydenham trains are far more busy.

I guess it makes more operational sense?

The Tattenham Corner trains are, in practice, mainline trains as opposed to a metro service. This means that they 'fit in' with the rest of the Thameslink services as they are fast trains. If the Caterham trains were part of Thameslink, they would have to stop at all station between East Croydon and London Bridge. That is the only reason I can think of but I can't see technically why this would be that much of an issue.

 

[gtr driver]

I guess it makes more operational sense?

The Tattenham Corner trains are, in practice, mainline trains as opposed to a metro service. This means that they 'fit in' with the rest of the Thameslink services as they are fast trains. If the Caterham trains were part of Thameslink, they would have to stop at all station between East Croydon and London Bridge. That is the only reason I can think of but I can't see technically why this would be that much of an issue.

Because it would reintroduce a conflict that the current work is eliminating whereby all Thameslinks had to cross the slow lines on which stoppers have to travel.

 

[LLivery]

Because it would reintroduce a conflict that the current work is eliminating whereby all Thameslinks had to cross the slow lines on which stoppers have to travel.

Really? Why couldn't the points just north of NXG station be used? Wouldn't be very complex compared to Blackfriars, Herne Hill or Kentish Town.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I guess it makes more operational sense?

The Tattenham Corner trains are, in practice, mainline trains as opposed to a metro service. This means that they 'fit in' with the rest of the Thameslink services as they are fast trains. If the Caterham trains were part of Thameslink, they would have to stop at all station between East Croydon and London Bridge. That is the only reason I can think of but I can't see technically why this would be that much of an issue.

Could totally understand if timetabling wouldn't allow, but with all the growth on the Sydenham corridor it is quite annoying. ELL can hardly cope as it is at peaks.

 

[gtr driver]

Really? Why couldn't the points just north of NXG station be used? Wouldn't be very complex compared to Blackfriars, Herne Hill or Kentish Town.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Could totally understand if timetabling wouldn't allow, but with all the growth on the Sydenham corridor it is quite annoying. ELL can hardly cope as it is at peaks.

It's still a conflict and conflicts on the Southern can result in the whole service sliding very quickly. The one at Blackfriars that retaining the Wimbledon loop service creates is an anomaly imposed by political interfering. Herne Hill is another almost impossible to resolve like Tulse Hill. Don't know about Kentish Town. Do know that less conflicts you have far more likely it is that the timetable will hang together. ELL took four trains an hour away from Southern which could have been ten cars now, though accommodating them at London Bridge during the rebuild could have been tricky. I wonder if we'd have been better off terminating 4 trains at New Cross Gate and 4 at Crystal Palace and retaining the other 4 that went to West Croydon and Sutton.

 

[southern442]

Because it would reintroduce a conflict that the current work is eliminating whereby all Thameslinks had to cross the slow lines on which stoppers have to travel.

Ah, so it's an issue of capacity. Just goes to show how just that little bit of conflict can make a big difference in capacity.

 

[LLivery]

It's still a conflict and conflicts on the Southern can result in the whole service sliding very quickly. The one at Blackfriars that retaining the Wimbledon loop service creates is an anomaly imposed by political interfering. Herne Hill is another almost impossible to resolve like Tulse Hill. Don't know about Kentish Town. Do know that less conflicts you have far more likely it is that the timetable will hang together. ELL took four trains an hour away from Southern which could have been ten cars now, though accommodating them at London Bridge during the rebuild could have been tricky. I wonder if we'd have been better off terminating 4 trains at New Cross Gate and 4 at Crystal Palace and retaining the other 4 that went to West Croydon and Sutton.

I think that would defiantly be better than trying to introduce a further 2 ELLs to Crystal Palace. As soon as there is a little problem the whole timetable will fall apart. It already has problems on a daily basis.

 

[Minstral25]

Just looking at the Cat/Tat conversation. These will be the only 8 car services through East Croydon. Presumably Tattenham Corner to Cambridge could be set up to take 12 car units if it isn't already and the intermediate station use SDO on the branch (they would be lightly loaded).

However are the intermediate stations up the GN line available for 12 coach trains?

If so is that why they are planning to extend Reigate station to 3 12-coach platforms to perhaps divert the Tattenham trains in 2022, so they can be extended and put on a busier route?

 

[philjo]

Just looking at the Cat/Tat conversation. These will be the only 8 car services through East Croydon. Presumably Tattenham Corner to Cambridge could be set up to take 12 car units if it isn't already and the intermediate station use SDO on the branch (they would be lightly loaded).

However are the intermediate stations up the GN line available for 12 coach trains?

On the Cambridge route I think the only stations that can take 12 coaches are Cambridge, Royston, Letchworth Garden City, Hitchin, Stevenage & finsbury Park (i.e. the semi-fast calling pattern with I think Baldock is also planned for 12 coaches?
All stations north of Hitchin to Peterborough have already been extended.

Welwyn Garden City is the main problem station as there are signals for the crossovers immediately either end of the 8 coach platforms (plats 3/4 have the connection to the flyover at one end and connection into the carriage sidings at the other). I think the other intermediate stations are more doable. e.g. Potters Bar plats 3/4 the signals are some way beyond the end of the platform so could be extended at the northern end, even if only to 10 coaches with SDO

Meldreth, Shepreth & Foxton are currently 4 coach platforms (the latter 2 stations are adjacent to a level crossing)

 

[physics34]

Just looking at the Cat/Tat conversation. These will be the only 8 car services through East Croydon. Presumably Tattenham Corner to Cambridge could be set up to take 12 car units if it isn't already and the intermediate station use SDO on the branch (they would be lightly loaded).

However are the intermediate stations up the GN line available for 12 coach trains?

If so is that why they are planning to extend Reigate station to 3 12-coach platforms to perhaps divert the Tattenham trains in 2022, so they can be extended and put on a busier route?

extending tattenham would be too expensive and would involving points and siding etc and im not sure there even the room to do this. Purley would be virtually impossible because of junction restraints either side of the station.

 

[hwl]

Just looking at the Cat/Tat conversation. These will be the only 8 car services through East Croydon. Presumably Tattenham Corner to Cambridge could be set up to take 12 car units if it isn't already and the intermediate station use SDO on the branch (they would be lightly loaded).

However are the intermediate stations up the GN line available for 12 coach trains?

If so is that why they are planning to extend Reigate station to 3 12-coach platforms to perhaps divert the Tattenham trains in 2022, so they can be extended and put on a busier route?

Tattenham Corner to Cambridge will be the "stopping" rather than fast service to cambridge so as philjo has pointed out will have plenty of short platforms on the Northern side as well - hence a good match!

 

[JonathanH]

Just looking at the Cat/Tat conversation. These will be the only 8 car services through East Croydon. Presumably Tattenham Corner to Cambridge could be set up to take 12 car units if it isn't already and the intermediate station use SDO on the branch (they would be lightly loaded).

However are the intermediate stations up the GN line available for 12 coach trains?

If so is that why they are planning to extend Reigate station to 3 12-coach platforms to perhaps divert the Tattenham trains in 2022, so they can be extended and put on a busier route?

I think that extending Reigate is to enable more 12-car running on Southern services by getting the stock back to London to run two peak trains unless they can swap the Three Bridges Thameslink services over with the Victoria to Reigate/Tonbridge service.

There appears to be a chance of local opposition to the plans for extra / longer platforms at Reigate because of the loss of parking facilities / possibility of extra development.

Is it really 2022 before it would now happen?

One other point I don't understand about fixed formation trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner is that a path is currently saved by combining these at Purley. If they send separate trains into London Bridge from these two destinations in the future in each half hour somewhere else must be losing out on a path through South Croydon.

 

[455driver]

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?

What do you suggest as a workable/cost effective/ reliable alternative!

There is no alternative (yet) which is why they are doing this.

 

[hwl]

I think that extending Reigate is to enable more 12-car running on Southern services by getting the stock back to London to run two peak trains unless they can swap the Three Bridges Thameslink services over with the Victoria to Reigate/Tonbridge service.

There appears to be a chance of local opposition to the plans for extra / longer platforms at Reigate because of the loss of parking facilities / possibility of extra development.

Is it really 2022 before it would now happen?

One other point I don't understand about fixed formation trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner is that a path is currently saved by combining these at Purley. If they send separate trains into London Bridge from these two destinations in the future in each half hour somewhere else must be losing out on a path through South Croydon.

The issue is currently terminating capacity in London especially London Bridge and pathing NXG - LBG (till 2018) not East Croydon - South Croydon. It becomes even less of an issue after Windmill Bridge and ECR are rebuilt.

 

[cjmillsnun]

What do you suggest as a workable/cost effective/ reliable alternative!

There is no alternative (yet) which is why they are doing this.

But you know as well as anyone else that passengers expect trains to be a tardis. capable of time travel and bigger inside than out.

 

[jon0844]

Time travel should certainly be a feature of all new trains. As long as nobody wants to travel to Christmas Day or any Sunday.

 

[gtr driver]

I think that extending Reigate is to enable more 12-car running on Southern services by getting the stock back to London to run two peak trains unless they can swap the Three Bridges Thameslink services over with the Victoria to Reigate/Tonbridge service.

There appears to be a chance of local opposition to the plans for extra / longer platforms at Reigate because of the loss of parking facilities / possibility of extra development.

Is it really 2022 before it would now happen?

One other point I don't understand about fixed formation trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner is that a path is currently saved by combining these at Purley. If they send separate trains into London Bridge from these two destinations in the future in each half hour somewhere else must be losing out on a path through South Croydon.

I don't know what the exact eventual service pattern will be, but as far as I can tell, the splitting trains only run in the peaks and will mostly not change under Thameslink (some are to and from Victoria). The off peak semi fast Tattenham to London Bridge and the peak semi fast London Bridge to Caterham will become part of Thameslink so no extra paths are needed in theory. How they plan to run this after the evening peak I don't know. At present there are 4 Caterham stoppers per hour, two apiece from Vic and London Bridge and 2tph semi fast London Bridge to Tattenham off peak that becomes 2tph LB-Caterham and 2tph Vic-Tattenham stoppers in the evening. Maybe Caterham will get 4tph all day.

 

[Minstral25]

I think that extending Reigate is to enable more 12-car running on Southern services by getting the stock back to London to run two peak trains unless they can swap the Three Bridges Thameslink services over with the Victoria to Reigate/Tonbridge service.

There appears to be a chance of local opposition to the plans for extra / longer platforms at Reigate because of the loss of parking facilities / possibility of extra development.

Is it really 2022 before it would now happen?

One other point I don't understand about fixed formation trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner is that a path is currently saved by combining these at Purley. If they send separate trains into London Bridge from these two destinations in the future in each half hour somewhere else must be losing out on a path through South Croydon.

Thanks all for replies

The Reigate Society opposes the plans because a small portion of the car park will be lost, however I think the commuter base at Reigate will be much more vocal about needing services (they mostly walk to station).

They are definitely warmed up, as it looks like Reigate to London Bridge will be gone in 2018 under current plans. DfT have confirmed their will be just 4 London Bridge (plus 4 Victoria) per hour in the peak from Redhill which will all be 12 Car 700's so no room for a Reigate/Tonbridge service - naturally that may change as consultation takes place. They seems to be preparing Reigate commuters by cancelling their London Bridge service very other day so far this month.

2022 was the last time mentioned as it will be connected and signalled alongside the reconstruction of the Southern end of Redhill station, which I think is set for 2022. Hopefully earlier as Redhill re-plan is needed now. Don't confuse with platform Zero and northern end rebuild of Redhill as that is booked for Easter 2018 I believe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know what the exact eventual service pattern will be, but as far as I can tell, the splitting trains only run in the peaks and will mostly not change under Thameslink (some are to and from Victoria). The off peak semi fast Tattenham to London Bridge and the peak semi fast London Bridge to Caterham will become part of Thameslink so no extra paths are needed in theory. How they plan to run this after the evening peak I don't know. At present there are 4 Caterham stoppers per hour, two apiece from Vic and London Bridge and 2tph semi fast London Bridge to Tattenham off peak that becomes 2tph LB-Caterham and 2tph Vic-Tattenham stoppers in the evening. Maybe Caterham will get 4tph all day.

I'd guess that Tattenham will have the 2 8-car Thameslink trains all day which will replace the current semi-fast service to London Bridge and Caterham will take the stoppers all day as now. It seems odd that Caterham is the only busy station on the line but only gets stopping services with little or no time saved by changing en route. At peak the extra services from Victoria will run perhaps only to Caterham with the additional WGC to CAT service. Splitting at Purley causes significant delays on the slow lines as the trains queue up to split in the peaks so getting rid of the splits will be positive

 

[smudger34]

Anyone know which one was sat in the Down Thameslink sidings opposite the depot at three bridges about 2225 last night 22/12/15

thanks
Dom

 

[asylumxl]

It has been announced that GTR has ordered Desiro City variants (6 car sets) for the GN route in to Moorgate. Will they be fully compatible with the 700s, allowing easier rescue of TL trains on the ECML?

See here: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...siemens-class-700-variants-for-great-northern

GTR orders new fleet of Siemens Class 700 variants for Great Northern

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) has chosen Siemens to provide a new £200m fleet of modern air-conditioned carriages for Great Northern suburban services to and from Moorgate.

Siemens will produce 25 six-car units (150 vehicles total) of a*variant of the Class 700 Desiro City traincurrently being built for the Thameslink routes.

The fleet will replace 40-year-old Class 313 trains by the end of 2018 on routes to and from Welwyn and Hertford, Stevenage and Letchworth.

GTR’s fleet director, Gerry McFadden, said: “Coupled with the seven-day-a-week service to Moorgate that we started this month, these new trains will give our passengers a superior, modern comfortable journey with more capacity, improved reliability, air conditioning and passenger information systems that can be remotely updated to provide real-time information.

“This is just one of four new train fleets we’re bringing in, introducing almost 1,400 new train carriages to the network, and we’re delighted to be appointing Siemens as our preferred bidder.”

Features requested as a result of consultations with businesses and passenger groups include a fixed length with full-width inter-vehicle gangways to create more space for passengers on board, with on intermediate cabs.

As well as air-conditioning, the trains will have the latest passenger information systems with real-time displays, be fully accessible and compliant with disability legislation, and boast power points throughout.

To fund the massive order, worth over £200m, GTR will run a financial competition.

According to the CEO of Siemens’ Mobility Division, Dr Jochen Eickholt, the contract will be finalised next year.

Separately, GTR’s Class 700 fleet, also built by Siemens for the Thameslink programme, has*recently performed its first test run on the mainline*between the operator’sdepot at Three Bridges*and Brighton.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Today it has been announced that GTR has ordered Desiro City variants (6 car sets) for the GN route in to Moorgate.

See here: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...siemens-class-700-variants-for-great-northern

Today isn't today.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=124661