Thameslink ideas

[BartTheAnorak]

I wonder how many people actually take advantage of how many stops the Thameslink trains take in over a relatively long distance. Bedford to Brighton sure but how many, for example, travel from Flitwick to Preston Park with any regularity.

Depending on space at St Pancras (STP)'s surface platforms and London Bridge's terminating platforms, one could re-route semi-fast services to terminate at these while the through Snow Hill section could be kept for faster services calling at say just Bedford-Luton (x2)-St Albans-all stations STP through London Bridge then East Croydon-Gatwick Airport-Haywards Heath-Brighton (possibly Three Bridges for easier interchange to the Arun Valley Line without causing extra congestion at Gatwick).

In turn, services on the Wimbledon loop could terminate at Blackfriars. I mean how many people commute from Radlett to St Helier on any regular basis?

I'm probably talking rubbish, but it would have certainly helped with congestion a few years back. The Widened Lines and Snow Hill tunnels weren't built to take anything like the amount of traffic currently being experienced.

EDIT: Take for example how services from the ECML onto Thameslink are usually non-stop Stevenage-Finsbury Park. Same principle really.

 

[Ianno87]

Depending on space at SPI's surface platforms and London Bridge's terminating platforms,

There's your answer.

In all seriousness, Thameslink is not really about flows like Flitwick to Preston Park. It's about Flitwick to London Bridge, Preston Park to St Pancras etc, to disperse commuter flows across Central.London without the perceived penalty for changing onto the tube.

As a nice side consequence this then also provides direct links for the more sizeable cross-London flows like Bedford to Brighton r Cambridge to Gatwick.

 

[swt_passenger]

...EDIT: Take for example how services from the ECML onto Thameslink are usually non-stop Stevenage-Finsbury Park. Same principle really.

That’s probably only because diversion of the relevant GN/ECML stopping services onto Thameslink hasn’t actually started yet...

Knebworth, Welwyn North, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate, are all due to have regular Thameslink calls...

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder how many people actually take advantage of how many stops the Thameslink trains take in over a relatively long distance. Bedford to Brighton sure but how many, for example, travel from Flitwick to Preston Park with any regularity.

Depending on space at SPI's surface platforms and London Bridge's terminating platforms, one could re-route semi-fast services to terminate at these while the through Snow Hill section could be kept for faster services calling at say just Bedford-Luton (x2)-St Albans-all stations SPI through London Bridge then East Croydon-Gatwick Airport-Haywards Heath-Brighton (possibly Three Bridges for easier interchange to the Arun Valley Line without causing extra congestion at Gatwick).

In turn, services on the Wimbledon loop could terminate at Blackfriars. I mean how many people commute from Radlett to St Helier on any regular basis?

I'm probably talking cr*p but it would have certainly helped with congestion a few years back. The Widened Lines and Snow Hill tunnels weren't built to take anything like the amount of traffic currently being experienced.

EDIT: Take for example how services from the ECML onto Thameslink are usually non-stop Stevenage-Finsbury Park. Same principle really.

There are already 2tph Bedford - Luton - St Albans - all core stations - E Croydon - Gatwick and then onwards services. Whilst the Widneed Lines etc weren’t built to take 24tph (very few, if any, Victorian railways were), they were upgraded to do it at great expense to the taxpayer.

I’m not sure how reducing services helps with congestion either. Yes it would reduce train congestion (of which there is relatively little under normal service), but it would have rather significant issues for passenger congestion on the trains that do run through and London Underground.

 

[BartTheAnorak]

There are already 2tph Bedford - Luton - St Albans - all core stations - E Croydon - Gatwick and then onwards services. Whilst the Widneed Lines etc weren’t built to take 24tph (very few, if any, Victorian railways were), they were upgraded to do it at great expense to the taxpayer.

I’m not sure how reducing services helps with congestion either. Yes it would reduce train congestion (of which there is relatively little under normal service), but it would have rather significant issues for passenger congestion on the trains that do run through and London Underground.

I guess I was remembering the hassle when they first ran trains through from Finsbury Park. Also a friend of mine has been a regular commuter between Luton and Cricklewood for the last 20 years or so and it's just been a non-stop nightmare of delays and cancellations both before and after the switch to Govia.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess I was remembering the hassle when they first ran trains through from Finsbury Park. Also a friend of mine has been a regular commuter between Luton and Cricklewood for the last 20 years or so and it's just been a non-stop nightmare of delays and cancellations both before and after the switch to Govia.

1) the hassle was a lack of suitably trained drivers, caused by a whole host of issues. Nothing to do with line. Capacity or capability.

2) I’ve been a regular commuter between St Albans and central / south London for 16 years. I would say that over that time the service has unquestionably got better (more trains, with more seats, to more destinations, with vastly improved stations in London), and delays have reduced. In that time I have also been responsible for other parts of the network, and with a few exceptions (c2c, Chiltern, London Overground), the service is no worse than the rest. Presently it is doing rather well, save for the hot spell 2 week’s ago (for which it was not the only line affected). This morning peak for example, every train arriving at Cricklewood from the north was on time or early. It was the same on Friday. So to say it has been ‘a non-stop nightmare of delays and cancellations’ is, I’m afraid, fake news.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I still don't fully understand why the Moorgate branch was closed. Where do trains travelling from the north terminate in cases of disruption? St Pancras High Level is congested enough. At least trains travelling from the south can terminate at London Bridge or Blackfriars. I know the platforms had to be lengthened at Farringdon but couldn't they have been lengthened at the other end?

I'm sure the reasons are buried in a thread somewhere....

 

[swt_passenger]

I still don't fully understand why the Moorgate branch was closed. Where do trains travelling from the north terminate in cases of disruption? St Pancras High Level is congested enough. At least trains travelling from the south can terminate at London Bridge or Blackfriars. I know the platforms had to be lengthened at Farringdon but couldn't they have been lengthened at the other end?

I'm sure the reasons are buried in a thread somewhere....

They built 12 car platforms right over the junction. The north end is on far too big a gradient. You’re right that it’s been mentioned before...

The other significant point is that only the south end allowed the space to build much wider platforms than the existing, and the various spaces needed for interchange with Crossrail.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I still don't fully understand why the Moorgate branch was closed. Where do trains travelling from the north terminate in cases of disruption? St Pancras High Level is congested enough. At least trains travelling from the south can terminate at London Bridge or Blackfriars. I know the platforms had to be lengthened at Farringdon but couldn't they have been lengthened at the other end?

I'm sure the reasons are buried in a thread somewhere....

Sharp gradient to the north means it was impossible

 

[BartTheAnorak]

There are already 2tph Bedford - Luton - St Albans - all core stations - E Croydon - Gatwick and then onwards services. Whilst the Widneed Lines etc weren’t built to take 24tph (very few, if any, Victorian railways were), they were upgraded to do it at great expense to the taxpayer.

I’m not sure how reducing services helps with congestion either. Yes it would reduce train congestion (of which there is relatively little under normal service), but it would have rather significant issues for passenger congestion on the trains that do run through and London Underground.

Also I wasn't so much talking about how much the tracks could take as the fact of it onlly being double-tracked which adds to the knock-on effect in delays.

 

[Bald Rick]

I still don't fully understand why the Moorgate branch was closed. Where do trains travelling from the north terminate in cases of disruption? St Pancras High Level is congested enough. At least trains travelling from the south can terminate at London Bridge or Blackfriars. I know the platforms had to be lengthened at Farringdon but couldn't they have been lengthened at the other end?

I'm sure the reasons are buried in a thread somewhere....

No they couldn’t be lengthened at the other end, as the other end is constrained by the tunnel, the Met, a large office building, and the gradient.

Neither could the platforms at Moorgate be lengthened. Nor Barbican.

In times of disruption, trains can terminate at St P LL. there’s the same amount of capacity there as there was at Moorgate. ECML trains can terminate at KX, or Finsbury Park (turning back in Canal tunnels). MML trains can terminate at W Hampstead or Kentish Town. Same as they always have.

 

[cle]

The within London flows are important too. I reckon more people travel between West Hampstead and Denmark Hill than Bedford and Brighton.
But this has been under-used as an intra-London connector too. And as a potential tube line, within Central London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also I wasn't so much talking about how much the tracks could take as the fact of it onlly being double-tracked which adds to the knock-on effect in delays.

In that respect it is exactly the same as any two track railway* that operates at high capacity. The West Anglia Main Line, GEML from Shenfield north, LTS, Chiltern, almost the entire tube network, and so on.

*Including lines that have 4 lines (or more) but operate as 2 separate pairs, such as the GEML south of Shenfield, the SWML inbound of Surbiton, Brighton Line inbound of Selhurst, and so on.

 

[Bald Rick]

The within London flows are important too. I reckon more people travel between West Hampstead and Denmark Hill than Bedford and Brighton.
But this has been under-used as an intra-London connector too. And as a potential tube line, within Central London.

Quite. Passenger numbers have, bluntly, rocketed on the intra London bits in the last year. For example there are now thousands of people travelling between St Pancras / Farringdon and London Bridge (and vice versa) in the peaks - this was a journey that was effectively not possible by heavy rail in the peak before last May. I suspect this has helped ease the crush on the northern and jubilee lines.

 

[JonathanH]

At least trains travelling from the south can terminate at London Bridge or Blackfriars

Realistically they can't be terminated at London Bridge as there simply isn't capacity for it and you can't get from London Bridge to the bays at Blackfriars (not that there would be capacity there either).

More likely that trains get terminated at East Croydon, Redhill, Gatwick etc just like they get terminated at Kentish Town, West Hampstead from the north.

 

[BartTheAnorak]

That’s probably only because diversion of the relevant GN/ECML stopping services onto Thameslink hasn’t actually started yet...

Knebworth, Welwyn North, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate, are all due to have regular Thameslink calls...

I can't find much up to date information online to that end.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Once Crossrail starts operating at Farringdon , then a huge (pent-up) demand of new journeys will appear. Consider for example interchanges at West Hampstead off Thameslink to the Jubillee line for Docklands / Stratford , fairly considerable now on existing services , but you can expect a major take up , - ditto towards the expanding Paddington and eventually built on areas around Old Oak / Park Royal. People will rapidly change journey plans. Heathrow being another one - a nightmare from Essex now - but a chest about to opened.

In any case , the new Luton - Rainham service gives , for example , a one seat journey from St Albans to Greenwich in about an hour.

Existing flows to "central London and West End" are going to be rapidly enhanced.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As someone who has studied the performance, infrastructure and logistics / resources in detail, arguably the single most sensible change to the Wimbledon Loop would be to change the Orpington - Victoria via Beckenham stoppers into through Thameslink trains whilst then giving the Wimbledon Loop over to Southern and getting them to go in/out of Victoria with stops at Brixton included.

The key reason for it is that movements at Herne Hill could be mostly undertaken in parallel rather than in conflict; and the opportunity exists to improve performance on the Chatham Main with stopping services departing 2 minutes after the passage of the fast trains rather than being 5.5 minutes after when they leave and therefore gives up to 3.5 extra minutes at Shortlands Jn for small issues such as higher passenger volumes which in turn delays the next fast service.

Also, a bigger depot at Orpington would mean the entire train crew there works Thameslink services and signs all routes and diversions (Sevenoaks via Otford, Sevenoaks direct, Catford, Herne Hill, diversions to Victoria if needed) as well as providing trains right through to St Albans etc and having that better flexibility.

 

[BartTheAnorak]

1) the hassle was a lack of suitably trained drivers, caused by a whole host of issues. Nothing to do with line. Capacity or capability.

2) I’ve been a regular commuter between St Albans and central / south London for 16 years. I would say that over that time the service has unquestionably got better (more trains, with more seats, to more destinations, with vastly improved stations in London), and delays have reduced. In that time I have also been responsible for other parts of the network, and with a few exceptions (c2c, Chiltern, London Overground), the service is no worse than the rest. Presently it is doing rather well, save for the hot spell 2 week’s ago (for which it was not the only line affected). This morning peak for example, every train arriving at Cricklewood from the north was on time or early. It was the same on Friday. So to say it has been ‘a non-stop nightmare of delays and cancellations’ is, I’m afraid, fake news.

Well admittedly my friend hasn't been compaining about it as much recently but he used to upload loads of pictures from the two stations where everything seemed to be either delayed or cancelled.

On a lighter note I went to college in St Albans and did my first jobs there (I grew up in Hatfield).

 

[Aictos]

I wonder how many people actually take advantage of how many stops the Thameslink trains take in over a relatively long distance. Bedford to Brighton sure but how many, for example, travel from Flitwick to Preston Park with any regularity.

Depending on space at SPI's surface platforms and London Bridge's terminating platforms, one could re-route semi-fast services to terminate at these while the through Snow Hill section could be kept for faster services calling at say just Bedford-Luton (x2)-St Albans-all stations SPI through London Bridge then East Croydon-Gatwick Airport-Haywards Heath-Brighton (possibly Three Bridges for easier interchange to the Arun Valley Line without causing extra congestion at Gatwick).

In turn, services on the Wimbledon loop could terminate at Blackfriars. I mean how many people commute from Radlett to St Helier on any regular basis?

I'm probably talking cr*p but it would have certainly helped with congestion a few years back. The Widened Lines and Snow Hill tunnels weren't built to take anything like the amount of traffic currently being experienced.

EDIT: Take for example how services from the ECML onto Thameslink are usually non-stop Stevenage-Finsbury Park. Same principle really.

Once Crossrail starts operating at Farringdon , then a huge (pent-up) demand of new journeys will appear. Consider for example interchanges at West Hampstead off Thameslink to the Jubillee line for Docklands / Stratford , fairly considerable now on existing services , but you can expect a major take up , - ditto towards the expanding Paddington and eventually built on areas around Old Oak / Park Royal. People will rapidly change journey plans. Heathrow being another one - a nightmare from Essex now - but a chest about to opened.

In any case , the new Luton - Rainham service gives , for example , a one seat journey from St Albans to Greenwich in about an hour.

Existing flows to "central London and West End" are going to be rapidly enhanced.

Indeed when Crossrail finally opens it's full route, with just one change at Farringdon you have opened up Heathrow to stations to Bedford, Brighton, Horsham, Cambridge and Peterborough which is far more convenience then 2 changes at both St Pancras then tube to Paddington then get the next service to the airport.

Travelling from St Albans to Heathrow to get a flight will be as simple as getting a flight from Luton with the obvious point that you need to change once but apart from that, access is just as easy!

Likewise if I wanted to travel to Reading, I can simply get a TL to Farringdon then a XR to Reading - yes it might be slow but it's more easier then travelling half way across London on a already busy LUL network so I welcome with open arms both Thameslink and Crossrail!

I don't want to see any negative changes to the route which I believe the OP is proposing, call me stubborn but I think the changes are for the greater good!

 

[Bald Rick]

As someone who has studied the performance, infrastructure and logistics / resources in detail, arguably the single most sensible change to the Wimbledon Loop would be to change the Orpington - Victoria via Beckenham stoppers into through Thameslink trains whilst then giving the Wimbledon Loop over to Southern and getting them to go in/out of Victoria with stops at Brixton included.

The key reason for it is that movements at Herne Hill could be mostly undertaken in parallel rather than in conflict; and the opportunity exists to improve performance on the Chatham Main with stopping services departing 2 minutes after the passage of the fast trains rather than being 5.5 minutes after when they leave and therefore gives up to 3.5 extra minutes at Shortlands Jn for small issues such as higher passenger volumes which in turn delays the next fast service.

Have you studied the passenger demand? Or the track layout at Herne Hill? You might get a very different answer! (Also the Orpington’s already do the parallel move)

 

[pdeaves]

Realistically they can't be terminated at London Bridge as there simply isn't capacity for it and you can't get from London Bridge to the bays at Blackfriars (not that there would be capacity there either).

More likely that trains get terminated at East Croydon, Redhill, Gatwick etc just like they get terminated at Kentish Town, West Hampstead from the north.

I think City Thameslink can also be used as a turnback in either direction. Whether any controllers would want to use the facility is a separate issue.

 

[Bald Rick]

Travelling from St Albans to Heathrow to get a flight will be as simple as getting a flight from Luton with the obvious point that you need to change once but apart from that, access is just as easy!

I know what point you are trying to make, but it won’t be as easy as St Albans to Luton!

In about 18 months time, the former will be a 25 minute train trip, a reasonably long interchange (3 level changes), and then a 35 minute train trip on an 6tph frequency. The latter will be a 12 minute train trip, and a very simple interchange to a 4 minute frequency / 3 min journey time shuttle that drops you 100metres from departures. (Or, more probably for many St Albans residents, a taxi!)

 

[Failed Unit]

That’s probably only because diversion of the relevant GN/ECML stopping services onto Thameslink hasn’t actually started yet...

Knebworth, Welwyn North, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate, are all due to have regular Thameslink calls...

He just hope that it does start one day

Doesn't look very likely at the moment as it is constantly getting pushed back with no real desire to make it happen from GTR

 

[Aictos]

I know what point you are trying to make, but it won’t be as easy as St Albans to Luton!

In about 18 months time, the former will be a 25 minute train trip, a reasonably long interchange (3 level changes), and then a 35 minute train trip on an 6tph frequency. The latter will be a 12 minute train trip, and a very simple interchange to a 4 minute frequency / 3 min journey time shuttle that drops you 100metres from departures. (Or, more probably for many St Albans residents, a taxi!)

I know but in terms of access, it would be easier to change at Farringdon then use LUL to cross London especially when it's just one change instead of multiple changes.

I just wish GTR would pull their finger out and restore the Luton Loop services on Saturday and Sunday instead of just Sundays, is there any reason why they can't do this at the moment?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Have you studied the passenger demand? Or the track layout at Herne Hill? You might get a very different answer! (Also the Orpington’s already do the parallel move)

The track layout at Herne Hill would allow a train from Tulse Hill to go to Victoria at the same time as one from West Dulwich to Blackfriars. Admittedly in reverse it doesn’t perfectly work but with a small overall spend you could create the ‘fourth track’ at the country end to allow Blackfriars - West Dulwich traffic to leave at the same time as a Victoria - Tulse Hill.

 

[ComUtoR]

The key reason for it is that movements at Herne Hill could be mostly undertaken in parallel rather than in conflict; and the opportunity exists to improve performance on the Chatham Main with stopping services departing 2 minutes after the passage of the fast trains rather than being 5.5 minutes after when they leave and therefore gives up to 3.5 extra minutes at Shortlands Jn for small issues such as higher passenger volumes which in turn delays the next fast service.

How do you deal with the thousands of people who will then need to change at Herne Hill ? The station isn't big enough and wouldn't be able to cope. It is bad enough already.

Also, a bigger depot at Orpington would mean the entire train crew there works Thameslink services and signs all routes and diversions (Sevenoaks via Otford, Sevenoaks direct, Catford, Herne Hill, diversions to Victoria if needed) as well as providing trains right through to St Albans etc and having that better flexibility.

Not sure Orpington needs to grow. There is a Southeasten and GTR depot located there. The GTR depot already signs Sevenoaks via the loop and main as well as signing diversionaries into Vic. The Southeastern Drivers at Orpington also sign the route. Are you suggesting they merge the SE and GTR depot ?

Have you studied the passenger demand?

Possibly the only important bit tbh. The trains to Blackfriars from Tulse Hill are rammed in the peaks and well used off peak. The Orpy Vics are already at capacity and services up from Orpington/Bromley are an essential commuter route into London. You also need to consider those who access Elephant and Brixton for the Tube. Any change to services will cause a massive shift in passenger flows.

 

[hwl]

The track layout at Herne Hill would allow a train from Tulse Hill to go to Victoria at the same time as one from West Dulwich to Blackfriars. Admittedly in reverse it doesn’t perfectly work but with a small overall spend you could create the ‘fourth track’ at the country end to allow Blackfriars - West Dulwich traffic to leave at the same time as a Victoria - Tulse Hill.

And that 4th track is where the tens of millions start.
Given the stopping / non stopping patterns at Herne Hill there are already a huge number of parallel moves, what you are suggesting is attempting more segregation but that actually introduces more conflicting moves unless the Up/Up/Down/Down platform usage is changed. What is really needed is a flyover
Agree with BaldRick the problem is that most Sutton loop users want Blackfriars / London Bridge as they already have Victoria alternatives in many cases.

 

[hwl]

How do you deal with the thousands of people who will then need to change at Herne Hill ? The station isn't big enough and wouldn't be able to cope. It is bad enough already.

Possibly the only important bit tbh. The trains to Blackfriars from Tulse Hill are rammed in the peaks and well used off peak. The Orpy Vics are already at capacity and services up from Orpington/Bromley are an essential commuter route into London. You also need to consider those who access Elephant and Brixton for the Tube. Any change to services will cause a massive shift in passenger flows.

Exactly it shows 4sub 4732 doesn't quite know what is happening on the ground as well as they think they do.

Forum rule 1:
BaldRick is right 99.99% of the time

Forum rule 2:
If you disagree you probably aren't in that 0.01%...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Exactly it show 4sub 4732 doesn't quite know what is happening on the ground as well as they thing they do.

Forum rule 1:
BaldRick is right 99.99% of the time

Forum rule 2:
If you disagree you probably aren't in that 0.01%...

I think this shows someone needs to go back to school... I can barely understand you.