Thameslink ideas

[4-SUB 4732]

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.



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 ?



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.

If you are going to cause a significant shift in passenger flow, doing it at a station where you can undertake cross-platform interchanges is probably the place to do it.

The unacceptable 8-car 700s (I still maintain this was a stupid idea ordering them and using only 8-car capable routes) plying the route from Sutton, Wimbledon (etc) to the Thameslink Core is the problem. If you want to cause a shift, the use of 10 car units is most sensible. People can still get to London Bridge (in theory you could operate 8tph up to London Bridge from Tulse Hill), and it’s ripe for expansion to provide that connectivity at a station much better suited to higher passengers loads as well as encouraging further modal shift onto Overground at Peckham. People will find a way to work and as people are using the railway that bit less now seems the time to consider it.

Orpington I would suggest should be a Thameslink only crew depot as you’d have all trains staffed by crew there going up to Blackfriars (via Beckenham or via Catford), as well as all the siding space given over (along with Bellingham and Sevenoaks). Legacy Beckenham Junction services could be operated by Southeastern resourced out of Victoria or Grove Park; and the ‘daytime’ stuff from Victoria to Sutton etc via Herne Hill would be a Southern problem.

Grove Park drivers (along with Charing Cross, Slade Green and Dartford) would therefore be responsible for stuff between Sevenoaks / Orpington and London (Cannon or Charing Cross). The trains mostly stable there anyway or could do - it’s a logical step towards better consolidation of crew and higher yield of productivity.

 

[swt_passenger]

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

Since the delays to implementation the final 24 tph timetable consultation has been removed from GTR’s website so it can no longer be linked to. But theres no evidence that the remaining 4 tph of transfers of GN to TL and through running to the SE routes won’t happen eventually.

 

[Failed Unit]

Since the delays to implementation the final 24 tph timetable consultation has been removed from GTR’s website so it can no longer be linked to. But theres no evidence that the remaining 4 tph of transfers of GN to TL and through running to the SE routes won’t happen eventually.

Sadly - we also have no evidence they will - you ask GTR directly - nothing. Understand they have a lot of driver training to do but we have a real fear that 24tph will be quietly dropped.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Sadly - we also have no evidence they will - you ask GTR directly - nothing. Understand they have a lot of driver training to do but we have a real fear that 24tph will be quietly dropped.

I think it’s almost guaranteed at this stage, probably due to the regular importation of delays from the various routes on approach, that we’re going to stick at 20tph in the end.

 

[JonathanH]

The unacceptable 8-car 700s (I still maintain this was a stupid idea ordering them and using only 8-car capable routes) plying the route from Sutton, Wimbledon (etc) to the Thameslink Core is the problem. If you want to cause a shift, the use of 10 car units is most sensible.

10-car units at stations which can't be extended to 200m aren't exactly the best idea.

Which were the 10-car suitable routes via Elephant & Castle you would put these hypothetical 10-car 700s onto?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

10-car units at stations which can't be extended to 200m aren't exactly the best idea.

Which were the 10-car suitable routes via Elephant & Castle you would put these hypothetical 10-car 700s onto?

I think the point I’d make is I’d have used an all-12 operation and force people to change with ~8tph terminating in the bays at Blackfriars from the Denmark Hill / Herne Hill direction.

Perhaps an ‘all 12’ configuration would also have encouraged better reliability on the Brighton Main and associated branches as you would have built a totally Thameslink-centric timetable.

Examples of services I’d ‘import’ would be Peterborough ‘flyer’ type stuff and the Corby stuff (I know, I know, hot potato), as well as taking as much as possible at peak times from the Grinstead and Redhill direction leaving as much ‘legacy’ 377 stuff to go via Quarry and into Victoria.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think it’s almost guaranteed at this stage, probably due to the regular importation of delays from the various routes on approach, that we’re going to stick at 20tph in the end.

That is my view as well, we have had our timetable worsened with no benefit. If the service ever does run through the core we could probably pallet the increase journey times and reduction in seats. But to not get any benefit for the last 15 months of suffering is hard to take.

The delays import well - particularly in Finsbury Park

 

[4-SUB 4732]

That is my view as well, we have had our timetable worsened with no benefit. If the service ever does run through the core we could probably pallet the increase journey times and reduction in seats. But to not get any benefit for the last 15 months of suffering is hard to take.

The delays import well - particularly in Finsbury Park

Even a 2 minute delay at peak from Finsbury Park into the Canal Tunnels at 20tph is enough to give a bit of strain on Blackfriars Junction as trains run ~90 seconds late towards Sutton and in turn delay northbound stuff. We don’t seem to have perfected how to operate a railway such as Thameslink.

Examples might include, as I had previously suggested, taking a train from Peterborough to London and giving it a 1 minute allowance to Huntingdon, another 1 minute allowance between Arlesey and Hitchin, 1 minute between Stevenage and Woolmer Green, 1 minute between Marshmoor and Potters Bar and 1 minute between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury; with as many 1 minute station dwells as possible (perhaps only Sandy and Arlesey wouldn’t get them), and having a 2 minute stop at Finsbury all so that whilst the overall journey time increases by ~5 minutes, you get much better reliability and can stomach a ~6 minute late start from Peterborough without needing to invoke serious service recovery.

 

[ComUtoR]

If you are going to cause a significant shift in passenger flow, doing it at a station where you can undertake cross-platform interchanges is probably the place to do it.

Herne Hill is already crowded. Brixton is at bursting. You can't even alight without problems. Having people on the platform at Brixton will be incredibly dangerous.

The unacceptable 8-car 700s (I still maintain this was a stupid idea ordering them and using only 8-car capable routes) plying the route from Sutton, Wimbledon (etc) to the Thameslink Core is the problem

The Chatham mainline and the Catford loop are restricted to 8. To increase the unit size you need to extend the platforms. Of course, the other problem will then be Victoria. Victoria is limited in capacity too.

as well as all the siding space given over (along with Bellingham and Sevenoaks).

Thameslink already have Sevenoaks sidings. (which trains can't fit properly)
Thameslink already berth 2/4 in Orpington Sidings and 2/3 in Bellingham.

Siding space on SE is at a premium. One of the reasons why is because Thameslink came and encroached. Units got moved out of Orpington to Bellingham so Thameslink can use Orpy. If you pushed the last two sidings to GTR use; where do you put the SE units ? Grove Park and Vic are at capacity too. The platforms are in full use at Orpy too.

If you have a GTR depot at Orpington and want to use the Grove Park and Vic Drivers to take the Cross and Cannon services. How do you clear the platforms in the morning ? You will end up using Taxis to get Drivers to Orpington to take services.

You also have to deal with shunt movements. Orpington Sidings holds 12 per road and the 700's are fixed 8s. You are reducing capacity of 4 per road each time you berth something. Worse when things go wrong as you can't run in permissive. Mainline shunts take forever :/

Part of the GTR and SE capacity issue is because of the fixed length units. This is why Sevenoaks sidings is a little broken.

Not forgetting that SE is in desperate need of units. In about a thousand years they will eventually get the new franchise sorted and get the new rolling stock required. Where they are going to berth it I have no idea but they will most likely also be fixed unit lengths. This is just going to destroy berthing unless they start rebuilding, extending, re-configuring and building new sidings.

SE/GTR are in flux and I agree there needs to be some kind of reshuffle.

 

[jon0844]

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.

I believe under the new measurement of right time (one minute rather than five) GTR has hit the highest performance since it started - just under 75%. That might not sound great, but the new metric is going to be rather difficult for a lot of operators. Trains are measured at every single stop.

 

[Failed Unit]

Even a 2 minute delay at peak from Finsbury Park into the Canal Tunnels at 20tph is enough to give a bit of strain on Blackfriars Junction as trains run ~90 seconds late towards Sutton and in turn delay northbound stuff. We don’t seem to have perfected how to operate a railway such as Thameslink.

Examples might include, as I had previously suggested, taking a train from Peterborough to London and giving it a 1 minute allowance to Huntingdon, another 1 minute allowance between Arlesey and Hitchin, 1 minute between Stevenage and Woolmer Green, 1 minute between Marshmoor and Potters Bar and 1 minute between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury; with as many 1 minute station dwells as possible (perhaps only Sandy and Arlesey wouldn’t get them), and having a 2 minute stop at Finsbury all so that whilst the overall journey time increases by ~5 minutes, you get much better reliability and can stomach a ~6 minute late start from Peterborough without needing to invoke serious service recovery.

I already know the pain - as I suffer it very frequently. GTR don't have a plan B for even the lowest level of disruption. The turnaround isn't large at Peterborough - so adding more pathing time will of course help but soon need an extra set. Although if they are going to stick at 20tph in the core, they could get the 365s out of storage, put them on the London - Cambridge and use the 8 car 700s to improve resilience

 

[Failed Unit]

I believe under the new measurement of right time (one minute rather than five) GTR has hit the highest performance since it started - just under 75%. That might not sound great, but the new metric is going to be rather difficult for a lot of operators. Trains are measured at every single stop.

GTR maybe - great northern is still poor - with far too many self inflicted cancellations (ie no drivers)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Aren't most the platforms on the Sutton loop 8-car length?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Herne Hill is already crowded. Brixton is at bursting. You can't even alight without problems. Having people on the platform at Brixton will be incredibly dangerous.



The Chatham mainline and the Catford loop are restricted to 8. To increase the unit size you need to extend the platforms. Of course, the other problem will then be Victoria. Victoria is limited in capacity too.



Thameslink already have Sevenoaks sidings. (which trains can't fit properly)
Thameslink already berth 2/4 in Orpington Sidings and 2/3 in Bellingham.

Siding space on SE is at a premium. One of the reasons why is because Thameslink came and encroached. Units got moved out of Orpington to Bellingham so Thameslink can use Orpy. If you pushed the last two sidings to GTR use; where do you put the SE units ? Grove Park and Vic are at capacity too. The platforms are in full use at Orpy too.

If you have a GTR depot at Orpington and want to use the Grove Park and Vic Drivers to take the Cross and Cannon services. How do you clear the platforms in the morning ? You will end up using Taxis to get Drivers to Orpington to take services.

You also have to deal with shunt movements. Orpington Sidings holds 12 per road and the 700's are fixed 8s. You are reducing capacity of 4 per road each time you berth something. Worse when things go wrong as you can't run in permissive. Mainline shunts take forever :/

Part of the GTR and SE capacity issue is because of the fixed length units. This is why Sevenoaks sidings is a little broken.

Not forgetting that SE is in desperate need of units. In about a thousand years they will eventually get the new franchise sorted and get the new rolling stock required. Where they are going to berth it I have no idea but they will most likely also be fixed unit lengths. This is just going to destroy berthing unless they start rebuilding, extending, re-configuring and building new sidings.

SE/GTR are in flux and I agree there needs to be some kind of reshuffle.

I shall try my best to summarise against all of that in a short time as I’m about to go into a meeting...

1) Yes, the Chatham and Catford are limited to 8. On that basis, it makes it more sensible to use them to go to the Core now we’ve stupidly stuck ourselves with 8/700s than the Wimbledon and such which can use 10/377 (or whatever) with SDO if needed up via Peckham to London Bridge.

2) Thameslink using Orpington is indeed a bit of a waste as the sidings are good for 12 however it is a resource matter. The units being there / Bellingham / Sevenoaks and then of course Cricklewood etc is a reasonable move. The only Metro trains operating in/out of Orpington then towards Grove Park would be the Southeastern stuff to Cannon and Charing Cross which already has a fair whack of units each morning coming out of Grove Park with Grove Park drivers. That means it’s entirely sensible to let the existing depots (not Orpington) pick up that work.

3) Work will be needed and it seems likely new siding or depot space may be constructed in the new franchise. Hoo Down Yard is regularly cited. This will make things better.

 

[JonathanH]

Examples of services I’d ‘import’ would be Peterborough ‘flyer’ type stuff and the Corby stuff (I know, I know, hot potato), as well as taking as much as possible at peak times from the Grinstead and Redhill direction leaving as much ‘legacy’ 377 stuff to go via Quarry and into Victoria.

They already took as much as possible from the East Grinstead and Redhill routes (and for that matter anywhere else on the Brighton main line) into Thameslink.

Uckfield - diesel
East Grinstead - half Thameslink, half Victoria but Victoria trains are helpful with capacity at East Croydon against trains from Brighton line
Cat / Tat - 8-car restrictions / splitting / track capacity
Reigate - 4-car restriction
Other Redhill - 6tph limit at East Croydon - 4tph already to Thameslink
Arun Valley / Coastway - splitting and joining
Brighton - 4tph already to Thameslink

So you'd be looking at trains off the Kent main lines with the difficulty of the track layout at London Bridge.

 

[hwl]

10-car units at stations which can't be extended to 200m aren't exactly the best idea.

Which were the 10-car suitable routes via Elephant & Castle you would put these hypothetical 10-car 700s onto?

10 car is actually quite sensible solution for everything bar Catford Loop that isn't already south of the river.

Most of the Orpington stations Herne Hill and further south are already at 9 car length already and many easily extendable, SDO can handle the rest

The main issue on platform extensions on South London Line/ via Tulse Hill has actually been solved with the London Bridge rebuild which just leave Tulse Hill in the difficult pile. The points at St Helier are a potential issue but the loadings are low enough there that SDO should be ok (9car is easily do-able)

 

[hwl]

I shall try my best to summarise against all of that in a short time as I’m about to go into a meeting...

1) Yes, the Chatham and Catford are limited to 8. On that basis, it makes it more sensible to use them to go to the Core now we’ve stupidly stuck ourselves with 8/700s than the Wimbledon and such which can use 10/377 (or whatever) with SDO if needed up via Peckham to London Bridge.

2) Thameslink using Orpington is indeed a bit of a waste as the sidings are good for 12 however it is a resource matter. The units being there / Bellingham / Sevenoaks and then of course Cricklewood etc is a reasonable move. The only Metro trains operating in/out of Orpington then towards Grove Park would be the Southeastern stuff to Cannon and Charing Cross which already has a fair whack of units each morning coming out of Grove Park with Grove Park drivers. That means it’s entirely sensible to let the existing depots (not Orpington) pick up that work.

3) Work will be needed and it seems likely new siding or depot space may be constructed in the new franchise. Hoo Down Yard is regularly cited. This will make things better.

Also quite a few 8 car platform limitations north of the core too, so 8car also make sense for some MML

 

[Ianno87]

I believe under the new measurement of right time (one minute rather than five) GTR has hit the highest performance since it started - just under 75%. That might not sound great, but the new metric is going to be rather difficult for a lot of operators. Trains are measured at every single stop.

And GTR PPM is now routinely around the high 80s/low 90s% mark: http://trains.im/ppmhistorical/ET/monthly

The upward 'shift' from pre-May 2018 is noticeable.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

I live on the Sutton Loop, and recall that some years ago there were plans for all Sutton Loop trains to terminate at Blackfriars but that a local(Wimbledon?) MP got involved and claimed his constituents wanted to go to St Albans and points north.

The additional advantage iirc was that it enabled the doubling of the frequency on the loop that would actually make it far more useful to locals and in some cases releasing pressure on Northern Line from Morden (having commuted from there for 3 years) the trains are full (seated) from Tooting Broadway, and unboardable from Clapham North in the a.m. peak.

End to end journey times from where I live to St Pancras are roughly the same Loop vs Northern Line, but the potential to have to wait 30 mins for the next one really is a significant deterrent.

 

[jon0844]

GTR maybe - great northern is still poor - with far too many self inflicted cancellations (ie no drivers)

It's as a whole and the issues on the inners at weekends is what brought it down.

 

[Failed Unit]

It's as a whole and the issues on the inners at weekends is what brought it down.

I wonder if we will see 4tph at the weekends as they committed in the franchise or if that will be another commitment the conveniently forget about (like 24tph through the core)

** Not that I think we need 4tph at the weekend - 2 is fine for the demand but it was a franchise.

Maybe a couple of questions to wind grant up with.

 

[MarkyT]

Regarding the Herne Hill layout and services, I have posted an idea in the speculative section here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/my-idea-for-a-new-layout-at-herne-hill.187711/

A new layout idea for Herne Hill in South London. The arrangement places the slow Thameslink (TL) tracks in the middle of the twin island platform layout, with the fast Chatham (LCD) tracks weaving around the outside. Thus stopping TL trains need to cross only one fast line at a time and more parallel moves across the junctions are possible simultaneously.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

They already took as much as possible from the East Grinstead and Redhill routes (and for that matter anywhere else on the Brighton main line) into Thameslink.

Uckfield - diesel
East Grinstead - half Thameslink, half Victoria but Victoria trains are helpful with capacity at East Croydon against trains from Brighton line
Cat / Tat - 8-car restrictions / splitting / track capacity
Reigate - 4-car restriction
Other Redhill - 6tph limit at East Croydon - 4tph already to Thameslink
Arun Valley / Coastway - splitting and joining
Brighton - 4tph already to Thameslink

So you'd be looking at trains off the Kent main lines with the difficulty of the track layout at London Bridge.

Not strictly true. Realistically you suggest if all 24tph came from the Brighton Main there is plenty of scope for change. Indeed, having everything from Platform 4/5/6 go over to London Bridge (except at the most a half-hourly Cat and Tat splitter) you’d be laughing - with almost all 377s concentrated on Victoria and therefore minimal conflicting moves at Croydon and barely any at Selhurst.

 

[hwl]

Not strictly true. Realistically you suggest if all 24tph came from the Brighton Main there is plenty of scope for change. Indeed, having everything from Platform 4/5/6 go over to London Bridge (except at the most a half-hourly Cat and Tat splitter) you’d be laughing - with almost all 377s concentrated on Victoria and therefore minimal conflicting moves at Croydon and barely any at Selhurst.

And the small matter of rebuilding East Croydon to cope with the interchange volumes...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Regarding the Herne Hill layout and services, I have posted an idea in the speculative section here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/my-idea-for-a-new-layout-at-herne-hill.187711/

Or, if we’re intensely clever, we could move the ‘fast’ Chatham trains to Blackfriars and this make it “Up, Down, Up, Down” with trains to/from Victoria operating via Tulse Hill; albeit with some peak services between Victoria, Herne Hill and the Bromley area.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

And the small matter of rebuilding East Croydon to cope with the interchange volumes...

Which is believed to be getting done anyway as they build more platforms so I am pleased to say your point is mute.

 

[hwl]

Which is believed to be getting done anyway as they build more platforms so I am pleased to say your point is mute.

Moot not Mute...
Wimdmill Bridge and the rest will also get rebuilt if there is funding so London Bridge passengers from the fast lines won't be forced to change at East Croydon so your original thinking is moot.

 

[hwl]

Or, if we’re intensely clever, we could move the ‘fast’ Chatham trains to Blackfriars and this make it “Up, Down, Up, Down” with trains to/from Victoria operating via Tulse Hill; albeit with some peak services between Victoria, Herne Hill and the Bromley area.

Herne Hill has already been done to death in previous threads - There isn't the space south of the station to do that.

 

[Ianno87]

Herne Hill has already been done to death in previous threads - There isn't the space south of the station to do that.

That, and also passengers from the Wimbledon won't want to go to Victoria, nor will Chatham Main line passengers want to go to Blackfriars.

 

[Bald Rick]

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%...

Well now hold on. Ore often right than wrong perhaps, and that’s discounting things that are a matter of opinion. (Class 700 seats are not uncomfortable, discuss!*). But when I am wrong, I’ll say I am, which is more than can be said for some (not you Sir).

I live on the Sutton Loop, and recall that some years ago there were plans for all Sutton Loop trains to terminate at Blackfriars but that a local(Wimbledon?) MP got involved and claimed his constituents wanted to go to St Albans and points north.

The Hon. Member for Wimbledon. Latched on to some local feeling re direct trains to St Pancras (not further north). Encouraged responses to the TSGN franchise consultation. Responses on this issue outweighed all other responses on all other subject by several multiples. And that was that. I shall say more in my book (in about a decade).

* please don’t discuss.