I'm not going to argue, but I will try to help explain.
Firstly, you are absolutely right that managing passenger flows and behaviour at core stations is crucial to the success of Thameslink. It is the same in Crossrail, albeit to a lesser extent.
The concern I think you have is for core stations northbound in the evening peak, where there are potentially 3 routes, with 6-7 train destinations on perhaps 8 calling patterns, some of which will be on a 30 minute frequency. And the ability of the stations to cope with the passengers arriving for these trains, particularly if the trains are out of sequence. In addition, there are two alternative London stations for some of the services on the GN side (KX and Moorgate), which adds to potential uncertainty for passengers, particularly during disruption.
To a certain extent this is similar to the situation faced evening peak southbound today, which sees 5 routes with 6-7 destinations on 6 (rough) calling patterns, almost all of which are on a not quite 30 minute interval. With 2 alternative London termini for most destinations (Victoria and London Bridge). Now that works pretty well, so the principle is relatively sound.
The difference post 2018 is that there will be almost twice as many trains in the system, and more than half as many passengers. So it is the passenger management that is key to managing the stations, rather than managing the train service (not that the latter is not important).
Much work has been done, and there is much more to do. But you can expect significantly more staff on the platforms to give info, help generally, but also to be more assertive when it comes to getting people along the platforms and on to trains. Anyone who has seen Canada Water ELL in the rush hour will get the concept. My personal suggestion that anyone who is first to board a train and then stands immediately in the doorway blocking the route for others, to be poked swiftly with a cattle prod was not met with general approval.
The customer information also needs to be top drawer. Passengers will need to be 100% sure that the train pulling in is 'theirs', indeed they will need to know a while before that theirs will be the nth train in the procession coming through. The new CIS is designed to do that.
Of course CIS is a classic example of "the info out is only as good as the info you put in". That's where Traffic Management (TM) comes in. TM does have a predictive element. Current CIS uses 'dumb' logic - the train is x minutes late at location A, and has y minutes recovery time between A and my station, it will therefore be x-y minutes late. It takes no account of any other delay potential en route, nor of any other trains that might be in the way / have priority at junctions etc.
TM (used properly) opens the crystal ball - trains will actually be routed by the signaller / controller up to an hour in advance on a train graph, resolving any conflicts along the way. TM can then predict when a train will arrive at your station, and is much more likely to be correct as trains will be signalled according to the order on the train graph. Where capacity is reduced, eg 2 lines out of 4 closed, it will take into account other trains' stopping patterns. (would have been handy this morning). It can also take into account speed restrictions etc. As an example, at least once a week I stand at Blackfriars Platfrom 2 with the CIS showing 2-3 trains arriving within a minute of each other, and the stopper coming first. I know that it is not possible to get trains in less than 2 minutes apart, and that the signaller at Three Bridges will route the fast in first. But the CIS doesn't know until the fast hits the track circuit at the immediate south end of the platform. TM will know.
What TM can't do is predict new incidents, but then nothing can do that reliably, not even me
So, what I'm trying to say is that the level of information available to staff, and more importantly passengers, will be much better than today, and enable them to take better decisions about their journeys.
The final part of the jigsaw is robust contingency plans, such that when something major does go wrong on the network, there is a plan b that is a) predictable and b) easily and quickly communicated to passengers. Sometimes plan b will be very painful but that's the way it goes sometimes.
There is no doubt that Thameslink post 2018 will have bad days, and some of those bad days will affect the GN more than would have been the case without Thameslink. However if you ask the commuters south of Bedford if they would happily go back to the service as it was in 1987, there wouldn't be many takers.
It will be worth it, and GN commuters (particularly home owners) will reap significant benefit in the years to come.
Last edited:
