Thameslink - is there something wrong with the timetable when:

[NSE]

I still don't think there will be enough to alleviate pressure though. If you have Elstree passengers, Bedford fasts are going to sail through Elstree. Same with many ECML services. Even in the peak you could be looking at 20 minute gaps between services to some stations. As soon as one service goes for a burton they're all going to stack up, which will cause knock on delays for services further up both main lines that have come from their original terminals. I dunno, I just can't see it working.

 

[jon0844]

The only Underground destination from KX with a half-hourly service is Chesham and sometimes Amersham. Hardly the same passenger volumes as Thameslink. In any case, it's rather well known that passengers from the outer reaches of the Met Line have tended to migrate towards Chiltern in recent years.

Many Thameslink routes are only half-hourly. For the Peterborough route the peak service is planned to be awkwardly split between Thameslink and King's Cross. The Tattenham Corner-Cambridge service is undesirable for passengers travelling to Stevenage or beyond being slower and with shorter trains. Likewise Cambridge itself has the same awkward split as the Peterborough route.

The difficulty will be when someone travelling to, say, Letchworth turns up 15 mins early and decides to park themselves and belongings on the spot where they know their desired door will stop, and does everything they can to avoid moving in order not to lose their position in what they see as a queue. With at least five separate northbound flows sharing the same space this is going to cause problems, let's hope it doesn't affect dwell times or else 24tph isn't going to happen.

This is the problem. You can't really change passenger behaviour, and you're also mixing in people who are coming/going to an airport, or Eurostar, some of whom have never used a train in this country before (or certainly that line).

For me, I currently rock up at King's Cross, can wait upstairs in an airy concourse, check real time trains and make for my train. As long as I'm on time, I can get to it and find a seat no problem then wait and get comfortable.

Soon I'll have to go down to the low level platforms and wait. I could wait upstairs but I don't want to struggle to get in and down two escalators and risk missing a train.. so like most people, I'll go down a bit earlier than perhaps necessary. Then when the train arrives, it will already have lots of people on it who joined earlier in the core.

The platforms are quite wide but not that wide and there's sod all to do down there. Barely any seats, no shops, no vending machines - and one dingy toilet on each side that's often not a place you'd want to use however desperate.

The lifts are also so ridiculously slow and small that people will miss trains because of these, unless turning up VERY early.

All the best intentions in the world when it comes to the trains themselves is almost insignificant because of problems I am sure everyone is aware of but doesn't really want to admit to.

I believe there will be a new CIS system and hopefully better marking of zones, but we're always back to passenger behaviour.

Personally, I can see myself using Finsbury Park more often than anything else. Coming into London, it's no problem as I can choose on the train, but back.. well, I have more options - especially if there's disruption in the core and I can just get a slow from Moorgate. The downside is if the ECML is stuffed, I need to get back to St Pancras to use my Plan B route to St Albans....

 

[urpert]

Surely the major issue at the moment is everything having to squeeze through Herne Hill? It's certainly rare these days for a Vic - Bromley S fast not to get checked (or even have to stand) either side of the station, which shows how much busier it is compared to before the LBG work started.

 

[A0wen]

The beauty of 24tph is that they don't necessarily need to be in the right order and it will still work reasonably well.

And when it goes wrong it will bugger up both the MML and ECML, rather than just the MML..... I'm still to be convinced it's a good deal for ECML / GN users.....

 

[jon0844]

I'm still to be convinced it's a good deal for ECML / GN users.....

I cannot begin to think about the impact to the ECML when paths are messed up due to problems in the core, and the knock on effects right up to the Welwyn viaduct and beyond.

I wonder how a late running train from STP will be prioritised on the ECML, or not? Will services be terminated early to run back so as not to cause a further delay when returning to the core?

 

[blotred]

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a new train traffic management system by Hitachi that will be employed by Thameslink which will help with the issue/confusion of trains running out of order or late through the core.

Ie if train A is running 5 minutes late and would hold up train B which would otherwise be on time, the system would be able to compute whether to put B in front of A at a junction/decision point if it could determine at that time that moving A behind B won't delay any other trains (a simple example - obviously it would be way more complicated than that).

If the software won't be doing this, it would be a shame as I have often thought that software could perform this sort of impact analysis better than a human could.

 

[bramling]

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a new train traffic management system by Hitachi that will be employed by Thameslink which will help with the issue/confusion of trains running out of order or late through the core.

Ie if train A is running 5 minutes late and would hold up train B which would otherwise be on time, the system would be able to compute whether to put B in front of A at a junction/decision point if it could determine at that time that moving A behind B won't delay any other trains (a simple example - obviously it would be way more complicated than that).

If the software won't be doing this, it would be a shame as I have often thought that software could perform this sort of impact analysis better than a human could.

It may help, time will tell. But even the best system, human or machine, can only ever deliver the "least worst" regulating decision when presented with a disrupted railway.

The best way to run the railway is right-time. People can form their own decision as to whether a northbound service originating from a layover at King's Cross, or a 50-mile run up from Brighton is most likely to be right-time.

There would be the option to turn short at the likes of Letchworth or, more inconveniently, Royston - although less of an option if the service is booked to change drivers at Cambridge. Not sure if these sorts of details are finalised yet, but depending on the setup I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tattenham Corner trains in particular often getting turned at Letchworth. In fact, this would be a much more sensible terminus for them at all times.

 

[Triumph]

I cannot begin to think about the impact to the ECML when paths are messed up due to problems in the core, and the knock on effects right up to the Welwyn viaduct and beyond.

I wonder how a late running train from STP will be prioritised on the ECML, or not? Will services be terminated early to run back so as not to cause a further delay when returning to the core?

I would think it will be the same system as now on Thameslink, either miss out most of the stops and run to where it should or turn round short. Trains frequently run nonstop from STP to LUT or even BED when they are late, plus late running stoppers turn at WHP/CWD or BFR.

 

[Taunton]

Obviously the Sutton loop shouldn't be Thameslink, instead being Blackfriars terminators, with all TL going via London Bridge.

That will happen within a few years when the politicians who caused it are gone. Thameslink will never be a TfL service, it is inter-regional. The Sutton Loop is wholly within the TfL area, and can be offered to them as part of the South London services, if run from Blackfriars. They just won't be able to keep their hands off it.

 

[NSE]

This whole page is my thoughts to Thameslink in a nutshell. It's just gonna suck everything into carnage after one issue through the core

 

[jon0844]

I would think it will be the same system as now on Thameslink, either miss out most of the stops and run to where it should or turn round short. Trains frequently run nonstop from STP to LUT or even BED when they are late, plus late running stoppers turn at WHP/CWD or BFR.

And if they're turfed out at St Pancras then they just fill up the platform? They won't go out to make room until the next service arrives so will be blocking others. I bet they won't even move back as they'll feel obliged to get on first...

 

[87015]

That will happen within a few years when the politicians who caused it are gone. Thameslink will never be a TfL service, it is inter-regional. The Sutton Loop is wholly within the TfL area, and can be offered to them as part of the South London services, if run from Blackfriars. They just won't be able to keep their hands off it.

The pressure didn't come from politicians, it came from a large part of the local electorate who didn't fancy being shafted. Quite rightly so.

 

[Class377/5]

The only Underground destination from KX with a half-hourly service is Chesham and sometimes Amersham. Hardly the same passenger volumes as Thameslink. In any case, it's rather well known that passengers from the outer reaches of the Met Line have tended to migrate towards Chiltern in recent years.

The max time is the same as the max time for outer destinations on Thameslink. The passengers numbers are not the same but then again the trains and stations are smaller so the example is very relevant.As for passengers using alternative services, well there is the same limited options on Thameslink so again its comparable.

Many Thameslink routes are only half-hourly. For the Peterborough route the peak service is planned to be awkwardly split between Thameslink and King's Cross. The Tattenham Corner-Cambridge service is undesirable for passengers travelling to Stevenage or beyond being slower and with shorter trains. Likewise Cambridge itself has the same awkward split as the Peterborough route.

Cambridge is spilt 2/3 in favour of Thameslink with only the fast Cambridge Express service from Kings Cross so unless your only looking at Cambridge then most people will have the choice of Thameslink or a few Kings Cross trains.

The difficulty will be when someone travelling to, say, Letchworth turns up 15 mins early and decides to park themselves and belongings on the spot where they know their desired door will stop, and does everything they can to avoid moving in order not to lose their position in what they see as a queue. With at least five separate northbound flows sharing the same space this is going to cause problems, let's hope it doesn't affect dwell times or else 24tph isn't going to happen.

The difficult is your failure to realise you won't have just a 2tph service to Letchworth on Thameslink but a 4tph. So your example of 15mins early will likely mean choice of an earlier train or the ability to change on route. This alone helps in dealing with the crowds. The key part is passenger choice. Commuters will get used to it and know what's best.

For example for my train home on my old shift pattern I could wait for the Thameslink or do one change and be home 20mins earlier. That was my choice but shoulds how having multiple difference train services helps passengers.

Of course the fact that stations like St Pancras, City etc are designed to cope with the projected passenger loads for IIRC, around another 50 years minimum is how Thameslink is going to cope with the traffic levels for another generation. Farringdon has been designed to cope with the projected load from a busier Crossrail than it was expected to open with as well.

I still don't think there will be enough to alleviate pressure though. If you have Elstree passengers, Bedford fasts are going to sail through Elstree. Same with many ECML services. Even in the peak you could be looking at 20 minute gaps between services to some stations. As soon as one service goes for a burton they're all going to stack up, which will cause knock on delays for services further up both main lines that have come from their original terminals. I dunno, I just can't see it working.

What's the difference from today expect more trains and peak as a whole, longer trains meaning an increase in capacity?

Note that the reality has been that Thameslink unique structure has actually help keep trains moving as much as it has had an affect. Multiple destinations allow for one incident to keep trains following. This happens on a regular basis on Thameslink. Somewhere like Victoria, an incident at Clapham Junction means you have a massive backlog that causes a bounce back in delays. The two funnels either side means when one is affected the other can provide a service. Yes it will mean hard choice as to what routes will see a reduced service but a continued service. All routes will benefit from this.

I believe there will be a new CIS system and hopefully better marking of zones, but we're always back to passenger behaviour.

New CIS system is now being installed.

Personally, I can see myself using Finsbury Park more often than anything else. Coming into London, it's no problem as I can choose on the train, but back.. well, I have more options - especially if there's disruption in the core and I can just get a slow from Moorgate. The downside is if the ECML is stuffed, I need to get back to St Pancras to use my Plan B route to St Albans....

Choice is never a bad thing. It keeps people moving.

Surely the major issue at the moment is everything having to squeeze through Herne Hill? It's certainly rare these days for a Vic - Bromley S fast not to get checked (or even have to stand) either side of the station, which shows how much busier it is compared to before the LBG work started.

That was my point.

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a new train traffic management system by Hitachi that will be employed by Thameslink which will help with the issue/confusion of trains running out of order or late through the core.

Ie if train A is running 5 minutes late and would hold up train B which would otherwise be on time, the system would be able to compute whether to put B in front of A at a junction/decision point if it could determine at that time that moving A behind B won't delay any other trains (a simple example - obviously it would be way more complicated than that).

If the software won't be doing this, it would be a shame as I have often thought that software could perform this sort of impact analysis better than a human could.

TMS will help signallers to make decisions with tens of minutes rather than seconds. For example a clash south of Blackfriars will be known about by East Croydon so the path of both trains can be altered to ensure that the clash doesn't happen meaning flowing service. The fleet and signalling can support this.

That will happen within a few years when the politicians who caused it are gone. Thameslink will never be a TfL service, it is inter-regional. The Sutton Loop is wholly within the TfL area, and can be offered to them as part of the South London services, if run from Blackfriars. They just won't be able to keep their hands off it.

People also forget that the Loop service is not wholly within TfL area as it extends to St Albans/Luton. Cutting that off will create issues as you still need to find places to stick 8 car trains south of the Core.

TfL is a partner in the TLP and they understand making Thameslink 2018 successful is having one controlling mind making the best decisions. The whole focus of Sussex, MML (south) will be focus on getting Thameslink right as it will be a key part of the service especially compared to today. This won't mean the rest of Sussex will suffer either.

The pressure didn't come from politicians, it came from a large part of the local electorate who didn't fancy being shafted. Quite rightly so.

I think as a point to bash politicians by those who didn't actually see the campaign which was significant enough to get a lot of local attention. The whole point of the political system is to get what the people wish. The crap often posted that it will create extra conflicts ignores that today's service south of Elephant has more clashes yet works fine (its south of Loughborough it starts being an issue).

 

[Ianno87]

Deleted

 

[QueensCurve]

The pressure didn't come from politicians, it came from a large part of the local electorate who didn't fancy being shafted. Quite rightly so.

It seems extraordinary, given the huge expense being put into London Bridge, the Bermondsy diveunder etc, that grade separation between the two routes isn't being contemplated.

A ship spoiled for the hap'orth of tar?

 

[Sunset route]

I may be mistaken, but isn't there a new train traffic management system by Hitachi that will be employed by Thameslink which will help with the issue/confusion of trains running out of order or late through the core.

Ie if train A is running 5 minutes late and would hold up train B which would otherwise be on time, the system would be able to compute whether to put B in front of A at a junction/decision point if it could determine at that time that moving A behind B won't delay any other trains (a simple example - obviously it would be way more complicated than that).

If the software won't be doing this, it would be a shame as I have often thought that software could perform this sort of impact analysis better than a human could.

But what variety are you pinning your hopes on for it come in three flavours 1, Isolated (your basic information system) 2, Interfaced (a glorified ARS system) 3 Integrated (your all singing all dancing version). I know what the core is supposed to be getting and what the extended out core (20 mins out ie East Croydon) should be getting, but 8mths plus since contracts have been signed all we have is radio silence. Not even a mock up of what isolated will look like like let alone the more advanced versions. The TMS working group that's I was a part of was adjourned in Nov 2014 and we are still waiting to be reconvened.

 

[Bald Rick]

It seems extraordinary, given the huge expense being put into London Bridge, the Bermondsy diveunder etc, that grade separation between the two routes isn't being contemplated.

A ship spoiled for the hap'orth of tar?

It wasn't contemplated as it wasn't required when the consents for the project were done, the best part of a decade ago. Rather difficult to sit in front of a Planning Inspector, when the first question will be 'what is the purpose of this flyover?' When the answer is 'we don't need it'.

Besides, I have no idea how or where you could actually build it.

 

[Taunton]

It's not going to be like London Underground, where if the train from Stanmore is 3 minutes late they can start the one normally following from Willesden Green 3 minutes early to maintain the intervals through the core. For Thameslink, if a train from Brighton presents x minutes late there is going to be no running another from the Sutton Loop x minutes early - there is going to be a core service GAP...

With all that means, in delaying even more its successor picking up two trainloads through the core.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's not going to be like London Underground, where if the train from Stanmore is 3 minutes late they can start the one normally following from Willesden Green 3 minutes early to maintain the intervals through the core. For Thameslink, if a train from Brighton presents x minutes late there is going to be no running another from the Sutton Loop x minutes early - there is going to be a core service GAP...

With all that means, in delaying even more its successor picking up two trainloads through the core.

I would be surprised if that is universally true. If the train from Brighton is late enough then you might as well let the train from the Sutton loop go first, since all trains in the core will stop at the same places.

 

[Sunset route]

The BML is unrealible now as it is, let alone when it goes over to 2X Brighton-Bedford, 2X Brighton-Cambridge, 2X Horsham-Peterborough 2X Three Bridges-Bedford and 2X Tattenham Corner-Cambridge off peak. As Well as the Littlehanpton, East Grinstead and Caterham peak extras (which may be extensions of existing services). Presenting all these trains to the UP Sussex Fast line beyond Norwood Junction consistently on time is where it's going to go wrong day in day out. The knitting is over worked and the timetable tries to be too clever at times and now the TDMs have been renewed to a slower modern version, stetting routes is no where as quick as it used to be, just in the area where you need it to be ie South Croydon to Norwood Junction.

 

[bramling]

The max time is the same as the max time for outer destinations on Thameslink. The passengers numbers are not the same but then again the trains and stations are smaller so the example is very relevant.As for passengers using alternative services, well there is the same limited options on Thameslink so again its comparable.

Between 1700 and 1800, King's Cross has 4tph to Watford, 4tph to Amersham/Chesham and 8tph to Uxbridge. A further 8tph start from Baker Street, giving a further 4tph to Watford, 2tph to Uxbridge and 2tph to Amersham. Add to this some Chiltern services from Marylebone. This is rather more frequent than Thameslink, also (apart from some limited stopping) the earliest split between destinations is at Harrow-on-the Hill.

Cambridge is spilt 2/3 in favour of Thameslink with only the fast Cambridge Express service from Kings Cross so unless your only looking at Cambridge then most people will have the choice of Thameslink or a few Kings Cross trains.

The above doesn't make sense at all. As you say Cambridge has the choice of Thameslink or King's Cross. Destinations south of Cambridge don't have that choice as per current plans. Cambridge's choice is awkward - a fast journey to King's Cross, or a slower Thameslink journey (passengers using Thameslink from Cambridge will also take up seats to the detriment of passengers boarding at intermediate stations).

The difficult is your failure to realise you won't have just a 2tph service to Letchworth on Thameslink but a 4tph. So your example of 15mins early will likely mean choice of an earlier train or the ability to change on route. This alone helps in dealing with the crowds. The key part is passenger choice. Commuters will get used to it and know what's best.

Firstly, there's no guarantee the 4tph will be evenly spaced - since it's made up of two separate services.

Secondly, there are good reasons why Letchworth passengers, in the real world, would wish to avoid the Tattenham Corner-Cambridge service. It's only 8 cars long, it calls at 5 extra stations and will take 10-15 mins longer, and it will be more prone to poor performance. There's the risk of getting stuck behind a Moorgate all-stations train between Potters Bar and Welwyn, the risk of getting held waiting for a path across the Welwyn Viaduct, the risk of getting tied up with a terminating Hertford train at Stevenage (depending on what happens with the extra platform), the risk of delay at Hitchin sharing the single down platform with other Cambridge and Peterborough services, and the risk of delay waiting for a path down the Cambridge branch. This all happens today, and 2018's railway won't be different, despite the logo changing from Great Northern to ThamesLink. So in the real world, it's highly likely passengers would prefer to wait for the fast service, I know I would.

Meanwhile, passengers for plenty of other destinations won't have the choice. Likewise, there will be plenty of trains at the same platform for Midland destinations, which are of no use to anyone travelling to the Great Northern - and vice versa.

I guarantee there will be people who will use the platform space as an unofficial queue. Won't matter how wide (or not in the case of Farringdon) the platforms may be, the reality will be a move away from the edge risks less chance of a seat. This already happens today going towards London - passengers will turn up 20 mins early at some stations letting one or more London services go before their selected train arrives. All the more so if things are disrupted.

 

[Class377/5]

The BML is unrealible now as it is, let alone when it goes over to 2X Brighton-Bedford, 2X Brighton-Cambridge, 2X Horsham-Peterborough 2X Three Bridges-Bedford and 2X Tattenham Corner-Cambridge off peak. As Well as the Littlehanpton, East Grinstead and Caterham peak extras (which may be extensions of existing services). Presenting all these trains to the UP Sussex Fast line beyond Norwood Junction consistently on time is where it's going to go wrong day in day out. The knitting is over worked and the timetable tries to be too clever at times and now the TDMs have been renewed to a slower modern version, stetting routes is no where as quick as it used to be, just in the area where you need it to be ie South Croydon to Norwood Junction.

There are no additional trains between now and 2018 on Sussex. The December 2015 timetable change put everything in place in Sussex with time to adjust where required.

Between 1700 and 1800, King's Cross has 4tph to Watford, 4tph to Amersham/Chesham and 8tph to Uxbridge. A further 8tph start from Baker Street, giving a further 4tph to Watford, 2tph to Uxbridge and 2tph to Amersham. Add to this some Chiltern services from Marylebone. This is rather more frequent than Thameslink, also (apart from some limited stopping) the earliest split between destinations is at Harrow-on-the Hill.

Apart from Kentish Town (which gets 2tph in the peak today compared to 4tph) all stations get frequencies equal to what you state.

The above doesn't make sense at all.

Ok, will make it simple. Cambridge will get 6tph service with one fast, one semi fats and one slow compared to the 4tph today.

As you say Cambridge has the choice of Thameslink or King's Cross. Destinations south of Cambridge don't have that choice as per current plans. Cambridge's choice is awkward - a fast journey to King's Cross, or a slower Thameslink journey (passengers using Thameslink from Cambridge will also take up seats to the detriment of passengers boarding at intermediate stations).

South of Cambridge stations will have a choice apart from along the Cambridge branch. Not to mention changing on route may offer quicker travel times.

I find it strange your complaining of a having an additional (slow) train compared today. Especially when the situation is improved for passengers with greater capacity.

And its not like St Pancras and Kings Cross are that far apart. Proper use of apps will help make decisions where to head on the move to the stations. With the new TMS you'll have a far better idea of what time the train will arrive with it decided sometime out than a minutes out.

Firstly, there's no guarantee the 4tph will be evenly spaced - since it's made up of two separate services.

Fair point.

Secondly, there are good reasons why Letchworth passengers, in the real world, would wish to avoid the Tattenham Corner-Cambridge service. It's only 8 cars long, it calls at 5 extra stations and will take 10-15 mins longer, and it will be more prone to poor performance. There's the risk of getting stuck behind a Moorgate all-stations train between Potters Bar and Welwyn, the risk of getting held waiting for a path across the Welwyn Viaduct, the risk of getting tied up with a terminating Hertford train at Stevenage (depending on what happens with the extra platform), the risk of delay at Hitchin sharing the single down platform with other Cambridge and Peterborough services, and the risk of delay waiting for a path down the Cambridge branch. This all happens today, and 2018's railway won't be different, despite the logo changing from Great Northern to ThamesLink. So in the real world, it's highly likely passengers would prefer to wait for the fast service, I know I would.

But that's what happens in disruption. Your complaining about people having a choice. More trains means more choice and less things stopping people getting home.

Sorry but if people will only wait for a fast train home then tough. There are choices. Of course in normal service they will wait for faster train but if if as you suggest they will let slower trains go past when it may be the quicker train home then that's just stupid.

Meanwhile, passengers for plenty of other destinations won't have the choice. Likewise, there will be plenty of trains at the same platform for Midland destinations, which are of no use to anyone travelling to the Great Northern - and vice versa.

Yet the majority of passengers will have a choice. You can't please every single person all of the time. You asking, no demanding, the service is more of a personal taxi with services tailored to all rather than trying to serve the actual need, to move people in large volumes.

I guarantee there will be people who will use the platform space as an unofficial queue. Won't matter how wide (or not in the case of Farringdon) the platforms may be, the reality will be a move away from the edge risks less chance of a seat. This already happens today going towards London - passengers will turn up 20 mins early at some stations letting one or more London services go before their selected train arrives. All the more so if things are disrupted.

This is no different from today and properly never will. The commuter will realise this and position themselves at various points according to what is best. The trains will have passenger loading info from day one (its already working) meaning your commuter will be able to see where the space is and make their own decision to where to sit. If someone choices to sit in the crowded part of the train, then there is nothing you can do.

As for people letting trains going that could take them home, well that is their choice. As I've stated multiple times, it all about choice. Passengers are already well adapted to coping with disruptions. It is often the case that when things go wrong they start using the alternative routes and this applies to GN passengers who would arrive at places like St Albans when things went wrong trying to get across to GN and going around the trouble spots. As a result I believe your fears of how people will react are on the majority unfounded and not reflective of what actually happens in incidents today.

Today you can access train running info live from Luton to Brighton. I use it to check on services as I head to the station. As this becomes wide spread across the industry and more data is put into the hands of passengers then getting home will be come easier with more choices. How is any of this a bad thing? It seems your hell bent on finding issues that quite frankly my personal experience are unfounded. You want to keep GN unattached to Thameslink and seem unable to see the capacity problem coming. Its all well and good now to state x is enough but when you have a project to deal with the next generation of capacity problems then, yes, initially capacity on the GN will be higher than is currently required. But I don't believe for one moment that come mid 2020's or later that this will be true. Maybe your stuck in the traditional UK thinking of only trying to match the curve rather than actually be ahead of it. And strange a user is complaining of choice and extra capacity. You may believe that the current failure in PPM will destroy your railway but prior to London Bridge closure the GN PPM wasn't that different from the GN's. I used to get the figures so did an update every few hours so know it quite well. Once Thameslink is put back together with new infrastructure, new trains, it will be nothing like the current state of play. And that is something many on here including yourself have failed to understand.

 

[bramling]

Apart from Kentish Town (which gets 2tph in the peak today compared to 4tph) all stations get frequencies equal to what you state.

No they don't. If we ignore any services starting from King's Cross, you have the likes of Welwyn North and Knebworth with 2tph, Hitchin to Peterborough with 2tph, and Hitchin to Cambridge with 2tph semi-fast and 2tph slow. So plenty of potential half-hour waits on core platforms - and that's with everything running to plan.

Ok, will make it simple. Cambridge will get 6tph service with one fast, one semi fats and one slow compared to the 4tph today.
South of Cambridge stations will have a choice apart from along the Cambridge branch. Not to mention changing on route may offer quicker travel times.
I find it strange your complaining of a having an additional (slow) train compared today. Especially when the situation is improved for passengers with greater capacity.

In actual fact, the current peak timetable generally offers 2tph semi-fast to the Cambridge branch (XX23 and XX53 Royston terminators), 2tph slow (XX22 and XX52, rarely used by anyone from London travelling beyond Hitchin), on top of the XX14 and XX44 trains which tend to be first-stop Letchworth. It has to be said performance of the 6tph can be poor if something is running late.

And its not like St Pancras and Kings Cross are that far apart. Proper use of apps will help make decisions where to head on the move to the stations. With the new TMS you'll have a far better idea of what time the train will arrive with it decided sometime out than a minutes out.

St Pancras and King's Cross may be close, but other Core stations and King's Cross certainly are not. We've already established that few passengers will actually have the choice between travelling from the Core and travelling from King's Cross, so the result will be people waiting on Core platforms.

I would be much happier with the Thameslink Programme if it genuinely did offer the choice you seem to in favour of, in this case the choice of whether to use the Core or travel from King's Cross. The current proposals don't provide this for most destinations.

Sorry but if people will only wait for a fast train home then tough. There are choices. Of course in normal service they will wait for faster train but if if as you suggest they will let slower trains go past when it may be the quicker train home then that's just stupid.

They wouldn't be able to tell if the service is going to get delayed on route or not can they? People can only make a decision based on experience. I can say with many years experience that you've *much* more chance of a delayed journey on the slower GN services, due to the amount of interweaving they do, both between tracks and between other services. This simply isn't going to change unless the service patterns radically change (which isn't happening) or the infrastructure is radically enhanced (which isn't happening).

This is no different from today and properly never will. The commuter will realise this and position themselves at various points according to what is best.

You hope.

As for people letting trains going that could take them home, well that is their choice.

Yes. Commuters will soon decide which are the best services for themselves to use, in terms of speed, and in terms of ability to obtain a seat. Like today there will be peak services which turn up at core stations with many or most seats occupied, and the best way to secure a seat will be to turn up early and endeavour to be first on. Having turned up early, I can promise you commuters will not take kindly to seeing others turn up after them and get on sooner.

If you're not convinced this happens, pay a visit to one of the busier outer-suburban Great Northern stations during the morning peak. You'll see issues with people being obstructed getting off trains due to people crowding round the doorway positions on the platforms, you'll see people waiting for a later train placing themselves in front of the doorway position and blocking people getting on, you'll see difficulty safely dispatching trains whilst passengers are crowded round the doorway positions on the platforms. You might even see a squabble if a train stops slightly short and latecomers get on before those who arrived first in the 'queue'. The longer the potential journey the more likely these behaviours are to occur as getting a seat will be more important to people. You're taking a gamble that this won't happen in the Core, as if it does a 24tph service will be a work of fiction.

As I've stated multiple times, it all about choice. Passengers are already well adapted to coping with disruptions. It is often the case that when things go wrong they start using the alternative routes and this applies to GN passengers who would arrive at places like St Albans when things went wrong trying to get across to GN and going around the trouble spots. As a result I believe your fears of how people will react are on the majority unfounded and not reflective of what actually happens in incidents today.

Actually I'm not really thinking about disruption, I'm more thinking about the normal service. Disruption will just make things worse.

Today you can access train running info live from Luton to Brighton. I use it to check on services as I head to the station. As this becomes wide spread across the industry and more data is put into the hands of passengers then getting home will be come easier with more choices. How is any of this a bad thing? It seems your hell bent on finding issues that quite frankly my personal experience are unfounded. You want to keep GN unattached to Thameslink and seem unable to see the capacity problem coming. Its all well and good now to state x is enough but when you have a project to deal with the next generation of capacity problems then, yes, initially capacity on the GN will be higher than is currently required. But I don't believe for one moment that come mid 2020's or later that this will be true. Maybe your stuck in the traditional UK thinking of only trying to match the curve rather than actually be ahead of it. And strange a user is complaining of choice and extra capacity. You may believe that the current failure in PPM will destroy your railway but prior to London Bridge closure the GN PPM wasn't that different from the GN's. I used to get the figures so did an update every few hours so know it quite well. Once Thameslink is put back together with new infrastructure, new trains, it will be nothing like the current state of play. And that is something many on here including yourself have failed to understand.

Once again you seem keen to make statements about what you think others have or haven't understood.

 

[Class377/5]

No they don't. If we ignore any services starting from King's Cross, you have the likes of Welwyn North and Knebworth with 2tph, Hitchin to Peterborough with 2tph, and Hitchin to Cambridge with 2tph semi-fast and 2tph slow. So plenty of potential half-hour waits on core platforms - and that's with everything running to plan.

So you want to ignore some services and then question the frequencies of that station get?

Apart from the villages, stations on the Cambridge branch get 4tph. Royston for example is down for up to 6tph.

In actual fact, the current peak timetable generally offers 2tph semi-fast to the Cambridge branch (XX23 and XX53 Royston terminators), 2tph slow (XX22 and XX52, rarely used by anyone from London travelling beyond Hitchin), on top of the XX14 and XX44 trains which tend to be first-stop Letchworth. It has to be said performance of the 6tph can be poor if something is running late.

Today doesn't equal tomorrow. That said the timetable is still not 100% with some changes still being made that will affect GN service so talking about timings isn't possible at the moment.

St Pancras and King's Cross may be close, but other Core stations and King's Cross certainly are not. We've already established that few passengers will actually have the choice between travelling from the Core and travelling from King's Cross, so the result will be people waiting on Core platforms.

Depending on where you are travelling from Moorgate may be an option. Considering modelling is showing reduce Moorgate usage as Farringdon becomes an alternative for some IIRC and Moorgate's uplift in service means your views are ignoring a way for some passengers to access Finsbury Park and GN/TL services from there.

I would be much happier with the Thameslink Programme if it genuinely did offer the choice you seem to in favour of, in this case the choice of whether to use the Core or travel from King's Cross. The current proposals don't provide this for most destinations.

There are choices for large volumes of passengers, just not yourself perhaps.

They wouldn't be able to tell if the service is going to get delayed on route or not can they? People can only make a decision based on experience. I can say with many years experience that you've *much* more chance of a delayed journey on the slower GN services, due to the amount of interweaving they do, both between tracks and between other services. This simply isn't going to change unless the service patterns radically change (which isn't happening) or the infrastructure is radically enhanced (which isn't happening).

They would be able to tell. You can do that now with apps/websites and its only going to spread further. Anyone with a mobile can now see live running data for Thameslink from Luton to Brighton, so there is the ability to see the data. And yes I believe that commuters will access this. And that's without any official changes to the apps, or anyone coming u with a new app that deals with this very issue. Its all possible.

You hope.

No its reality. Regular commuters adapt to changes. I've seen it happen myself. Don't see why the GN passengers are so very different from those.

Yes. Commuters will soon decide which are the best services for themselves to use, in terms of speed, and in terms of ability to obtain a seat. Like today there will be peak services which turn up at core stations with many or most seats occupied, and the best way to secure a seat will be to turn up early and endeavour to be first on. Having turned up early, I can promise you commuters will not take kindly to seeing others turn up after them and get on sooner.

I don't actually see your point here. People already trade quick trip for a seat on the railway. It depends what people want from their service. As you have stated that GN doesn't need so many 12 cars, not sure your point over no seats is all that valid anyway.

If you're not convinced this happens, pay a visit to one of the busier outer-suburban Great Northern stations during the morning peak. You'll see issues with people being obstructed getting off trains due to people crowding round the doorway positions on the platforms, you'll see people waiting for a later train placing themselves in front of the doorway position and blocking people getting on, you'll see difficulty safely dispatching trains whilst passengers are crowded round the doorway positions on the platforms. You might even see a squabble if a train stops slightly short and latecomers get on before those who arrived first in the 'queue'. The longer the potential journey the more likely these behaviours are to occur as getting a seat will be more important to people. You're taking a gamble that this won't happen in the Core, as if it does a 24tph service will be a work of fiction.

So basically your fellow rude commuters trying to access doors on today's service will stop trains running on time yet the GN PPM is fairly good as you have stated already. More and longer trains means people are spread out better and door ways that accommodate three not two people at once means I believe your views are completely unfounded. That said tests were done with real people (mix of commuters and non) and found the expected dwell times are within reality. Don't forget the 700s are designed to see 70% of its max capacity change at every station within the expected dwell times.

Actually I'm not really thinking about disruption, I'm more thinking about the normal service. Disruption will just make things worse.

If in disruption things can work then I don't see the issue with normal service.

Once again you seem keen to make statements about what you think others have or haven't understood.

I think personally you against the idea of TL coming full stop. You seem to be basing your whole option on what you believe and reuse to listen to the weight of research that has been done on the subject. You rightly see today's issue and attempt to make out that Thameslink of 2016 means Thameslink of 2018 will be just as bad but fail to notice that currently its physically in pieces and going through huge changes and will not be the same railway in 2018.

 

[jon0844]

So basically your fellow rude commuters trying to access doors on today's service will stop trains running on time yet the GN PPM is fairly good as you have stated already. More and longer trains means people are spread out better and door ways that accommodate three not two people at once means I believe your views are completely unfounded.

That said tests were done with real people (mix of commuters and non) and found the expected dwell times are within reality. Don't forget the 700s are designed to see 70% of its max capacity change at every station within the expected dwell times.

I'm certainly all for the completion of the project and have followed it ever since the start, but I think the core will be a problem.

I am not sure how tests were done, and what incentives there were for testers to act in the same way as a real commuter, as against someone potentially paid to test (when I did testing for Eurostar, I wasn't given any particular order on how to act as with some tests).

I'm thinking of when they tested airplane evacuation times, and people formed an orderly queue to get off. To make it more realistic, they introduced money to incentivise people to get off first.

Anyway, when it comes to many GN services, people are often going to a terminus - or getting off earlier. As such, someone starting at King's Cross has a whole concourse to wait. Sure, when they know a platform (using an app or just knowing it goes from there every day) they may stand on the platform and block those coming off as the train pulls in, but it's rare. However you can clearly see how it can mess up platforms 9-11.

Those boarding at Finsbury Park have much wider platforms, so it's less of a problem there.

In the morning, how many different service patterns are there now to cause real problems? Chances are most people are wishing to get to King's Cross. From WGC and down, maybe they want Moorgate but there's more of a gap between services.

I think passenger behaviour will be a big problem, at certain times even when things run well, and definitely when things aren't running well. I don't think anyone can truly appreciate it until it starts.

Farringdon is a particularly narrow platform, and even City Thameslink isn't exactly big.

I do concur that most sensible passengers will adapt their usage. I've already considered my options years ahead of time, and so will others.. but we all know what passengers can be like.

 

[Class377/5]

I'm certainly all for the completion of the project and have followed it ever since the start, but I think the core will be a problem.

I am not sure how tests were done, and what incentives there were for testers to act in the same way as a real commuter, as against someone potentially paid to test (when I did testing for Eurostar, I wasn't given any particular order on how to act as with some tests).

I'm thinking of when they tested airplane evacuation times, and people formed an orderly queue to get off. To make it more realistic, they introduced money to incentivise people to get off first.

Anyway, when it comes to many GN services, people are often going to a terminus - or getting off earlier. As such, someone starting at King's Cross has a whole concourse to wait. Sure, when they know a platform (using an app or just knowing it goes from there every day) they may stand on the platform and block those coming off as the train pulls in, but it's rare. However you can clearly see how it can mess up platforms 9-11.

Those boarding at Finsbury Park have much wider platforms, so it's less of a problem there.

In the morning, how many different service patterns are there now to cause real problems? Chances are most people are wishing to get to King's Cross. From WGC and down, maybe they want Moorgate but there's more of a gap between services.

I think passenger behaviour will be a big problem, at certain times even when things run well, and definitely when things aren't running well. I don't think anyone can truly appreciate it until it starts.

Farringdon is a particularly narrow platform, and even City Thameslink isn't exactly big.

I do concur that most sensible passengers will adapt their usage. I've already considered my options years ahead of time, and so will others.. but we all know what passengers can be like.

Indeed passenger behaviour is one of the key parts of the KO2 and its actually being looked at by the project team. They are spending time working out how to direct passengers to the proper parts of the platforms to avoid that issue. Yes there will be an element of people who refuse to change and perhaps having the train stop in the same part of the platform (the 'middle' 8 cars of the platforms will always see a train) will get people to line up.

But I maintain that the Tube is a good example here as it's working to the same principles on a smaller scale (so shorter period between destinations can it's all scaled down too). Look at the SSL lines or even the Northern with multiple difference destinations from the same platforms. And they work with higher frequencies too.

(And this point is general not in reply to the above poster)

And the point often overlooked here, everything so far has proven Thameslink can cope with 75% of the train getting on and replaced with another 75% of max design capacity per train within the dwell times while the service is working to 30tph, that 25% higher than planned capacity. Now see why I don't see a problem with 24tph especially in the early stages where capacity isn't anywhere near 100% on day one so there's space for people to adjust too.

 

[jon0844]

I agree that it could be a while before things get bad, but the problem might become more of an issue at stations like Farringdon than St Pancras, which does at least have a wide platform and an open area near the escalators.

What scope is there to increase capacity for the platforms at Farringdon in the next 20, 30 or 40 years? Or is it expected that other new lines will actually keep things under control?

One more thing they need to fix at St Pancras is Wi-Fi and mobile coverage. There is Wi-Fi there but even though I'm fully registered, it doesn't always work and sometimes won't even present the log in page. People will be additionally frustrated at the radio silence down there, as I am sure they already are - especially during disruption where you may want to call someone, or perhaps check the running status of other lines/stations (and can't).

Easy, seamless, Wi-Fi on the tube has really made a huge difference.

 

[bramling]

So you want to ignore some services and then question the frequencies of that station get?

I can't decide if you deliberately misinterpret and twist things to suit your own agenda or if you keep genuinely misunderstandings things which are perfectly clear.

The issue in question is how passenger flows and train movements might interact at *core* stations, in particular how it will work when passengers are waiting on a *core* platform to board a train whilst other earlier trains arrive and depart from the self-same *core* platform. So there's absolutely no relevance to King's Cross departures - they won't be serving *core* platforms.

Today doesn't equal tomorrow. That said the timetable is still not 100% with some changes still being made that will affect GN service so talking about timings isn't possible at the moment.

Right. So any assurances you give about how things will work are meaningless. Whereas we can look to today as a guide to how things may work in the future, on a railway which northwards from Copenhagen Junction will be barely changed from today.

Depending on where you are travelling from Moorgate may be an option. Considering modelling is showing reduce Moorgate usage as Farringdon becomes an alternative for some IIRC and Moorgate's uplift in service means your views are ignoring a way for some passengers to access Finsbury Park and GN/TL services from there.

Moorgate is only really an option for a small handful of outer stations - Potters Bar, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City, perhaps Stevenage if you're willing to heavily sacrifice journey time for a direct journey. In the grand scheme of things this is negligible. Perhaps there may be a shift which might reduce today's heavy overcrowding on Moorgate services (although the worst overcrowding is from the Hertford line), but you're talking about a drop in the ocean compared to the wider proposed TLP network.

They would be able to tell. You can do that now with apps/websites and its only going to spread further. Anyone with a mobile can now see live running data for Thameslink from Luton to Brighton, so there is the ability to see the data. And yes I believe that commuters will access this. And that's without any official changes to the apps, or anyone coming u with a new app that deals with this very issue. Its all possible.

Either you've misunderstood (yet again), or you're talking utter rubbish. My point was that the services in question have a comparatively greater risk of delay *on route*, *after the passenger boards them*. No app can reliably predict this!

not sure your point over no seats is all that valid anyway.

So you're suggesting it's not "all that valid" that there will sometimes be trains serving core stations where the number of intending passengers exceeds the seating capability? Get real.

So basically your fellow rude commuters

This comment is rather revealing about your attitude to passengers.

More and longer trains means people are spread out better and door ways that accommodate three not two people at once means I believe your views are completely unfounded. That said tests were done with real people (mix of commuters and non) and found the expected dwell times are within reality. Don't forget the 700s are designed to see 70% of its max capacity change at every station within the expected dwell times.

All the above is hope. The proposed Thameslink throughput has not been tested to the level that it will be expected to perform, day in day out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But I maintain that the Tube is a good example here as it's working to the same principles on a smaller scale (so shorter period between destinations can it's all scaled down too). Look at the SSL lines or even the Northern with multiple difference destinations from the same platforms. And they work with higher frequencies too.

Regarding the Northern Line:

In the southbound direction the entire City branch service is timetabled to run to Morden, so completely irrelevant to Thameslink. On the less-busy Charing Cross branch one train in four runs to Morden, the remainder terminate short at Kennington. So not a multi-branch setup.

In the northbound direction there are just two main branches, Edgware or High Barnet, with a very small handful of short workings to Golders Green or Finchley Central, plus a small proportion of trains to Mill Hill East (which still serve the entire central area plus over half of the High Barnet branch). So just 2 main flows, not the 5+ that core stations will see.

Nonetheless, since you think this is a good indicator of how Thameslink may turn out in reality .. perhaps you might wish to pay a visit to somewhere like Bank northbound at 18:00 on a weekday. Barely any trains get in and out within the timetabled dwell time (some go *way* over), and at times the driver has difficulty getting the doors closed and fully carrying out the 'safety check' before moving off due to passengers on the platform. Quite a bit of pushing and shoving between competing passenger flows. All in all hardly a good passenger experience.

The same happens at other busy platforms, such as London Bridge, Moorgate, King's Cross, Euston. The number of doorway positions on an 8-car class 700 will actually be less than a Northern Line 95 stock, and a 12-car class 700 will only have one more. LU has acknowledged that it will be very hard to further uplift the Northern Line without changes to the service pattern, likely further segregation, although this too is not necessarily viable due to entrenched passenger flows.

On the subject of the 'safety check' before moving off, if you pay a visit to the southern end of the Northern Line you'll find a range of trial measures in place aimed at influencing passenger behaviour following a dragging incident that was very close to being fatal, a significant underlying cause of which was passengers clustering around doorway positions on a crowded platform. Whilst some of these measures have had some impact, generally they have not been successful.

So far from plain sailing on the Northern Line, despite being a far less ambitious arrangement than Thameslink Programme.

 

[jopsuk]

the stations between Cambridge & Hitchin that currently get one 4-car service per hour will get two 8-car services. The ones that get two trains per hour (one of which can be 8 car, but is mainly 4 car) will get 2x12 car and 2x8 car. At (eg) Royston that's 8-12 carriages per hour going to 40 carriages per hour

 

[Minstral25]

There are no additional trains between now and 2018 on Sussex. The December 2015 timetable change put everything in place in Sussex with time to adjust where required.
.

Let's hope they do something about the useless Redhill timetable otherwise London Bridge will be 9 minute gap followed by 21 minutes from Redhill all day. Very uneven.