Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability

[Transilien]

Moderator note: split from

Thameslink brighton service

This is mostly a rant. Thamslink have got to be the worst service I have ever encountered. I travel from Brighton to L bridge everyday and back, I have an annual ticket which is never cheap and always rises in price every year. This is only for the service to get equally worse. For context -...

www.railforums.co.uk

I almost think that thameslink is too long and complicated and should be cut down to a service like Crossrail which doesn't leave the greater London boundary too far behind and also doesn't run on too many sections of mainline track.

This combined with the fact that most Journeys on Thameslink are not very long it could be better to move longer distance services to London termini and free up space at lets say London Victoria by running metro services through the thameslink core with class 700's which also seem to be better designed for metro services than the Class 377's are.

 

[AM9]

I almost think that thameslink is too long and complicated and should be cut down to a service like Crossrail which doesn't leave the greater London boundary too far behind and also dosen't run on too many sections of mainline track. This combined with the fact that most Journeys on Thameslink are not very long it could be better to move longer distance services to London termini and free up space at lets say London Victoria by running metro sevices through the thameslink core with class 700's which also seem to be better designed for metro services than the Class 377's are

But Thameslink is a mainline route! It forms a significant part of Brighton to the city and Kings Cross/St Pancras destinations. Similarly, it provides what is now an essential service from Hertfordshire to central London stations as far south as London Bridge and even East Croydon. The MML consumes the rest of the fast lines capacity to St Pancras where its passengers travel from beyond Bedfors up to Sheffield/Nottinham.
Effectively, your post is just another attempt to justify running a train type that you prefer. In fact, the class 700 isbn't a metro train, and it's 100mph performance is considerably better than Electrostars on the Thameslink routes anyway, with the bonus of very high capacity and shorter dwells.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But Thameslink is a mainline route! It forms a significant part of Brighton to the city and Kings Cross/St Pancras destinations. Similarly, it provides what is now an essential service from Hertfordshire to central London stations as far south as London Bridge and even East Croydon.

Why is it essential for Hertfordshire to have a direct service to East Croydon but not - say - Essex or Buckinghamshire? The only difference is of course that people will to some extent have adapted their travel patterns because of Thameslink.

It certainly does seem unusual for longish-distance trains to be the ones that cross right through the city while lots of the metro trains terminate, and to my mind it would make more sense to be the other way round, since having metro trains running through the core tends to give much greater connectivity between different parts of the city.

The argument is also that the sheer number of different places Thameslink attempts to serve make it much more prone to disruption, so maybe a more Elizabeth-line-style of operations would be more robust. It would certainly make the core more useful if a smaller number of metro destinations resulted in an evenly spaced timetable. I'd also note that the attempt to serve lots of mainline destinations also leaves stations between Kentish Town and Mill Hill Broadway with a (by London standards) rather poor service due to so many trains running non-stop through them, but I'm sure infrastructure issues and lack of capacity on the MML contributes to that. Ditto stations via Elephant and Castle on the Sutton loop.

 

[bramling]

Why is it essential for Hertfordshire to have a direct service to East Croydon but not - say - Essex or Buckinghamshire? The only difference is of course that people will to some extent have adapted their travel patterns because of Thameslink.

It certainly does seem unusual for longish-distance trains to be the ones that cross right through the city while lots of the metro trains terminate, and to my mind it would make more sense to be the other way round, since having metro trains running through the core tends to give much greater connectivity between different parts of the city.

The argument is also that the sheer number of different places Thameslink attempts to serve make it much more prone to disruption, so maybe a more Elizabeth-line-style of operations would be more robust. It would certainly make the core more useful if a smaller number of metro destinations resulted in an evenly spaced timetable. I'd also note that the attempt to serve lots of mainline destinations also leaves stations between Kentish Town and Mill Hill Broadway with a (by London standards) rather poor service due to so many trains running non-stop through them, but I'm sure infrastructure issues and lack of capacity on the MML contributes to that. Ditto stations via Elephant and Castle on the Sutton loop.

In the case of the GN side, a partial explanation for this is possibly that the GN’s inner-suburban service has tended to be a bit unusual in that it doesn’t actually carry vast numbers of people. I’d say this is for two reasons:
(1) that much of the inner-suburban service has been hived off to LU (High Barnet, Edgware) or has stiff competition from nearby LU lines which are able to offer a far more frequent service (Northern and Piccadilly lines). The GN main line out to Welwyn is very much affected by this, the Hertford line slightly less so.
(2) The decision to run GN inner-suburban trains into Moorgate whilst convenient for commuters has essentially fixed the train formations at 120 metres, which is comparatively short for metro operations.

This has essentially given us the situation where there aren’t many GN metro services which could realistically be sent into the Thameslink network, without abandoning Moorgate.

The problem with Thameslink isn’t so much the through journey opportunities, but the fact that the network has been designed in such a way that certain places have no alternative. Bedford and Luton have EMR, Cambridge has three different alternative half-hourly London options. But if you happen to use one of the many stations for whom Thameslink is the only option then the whole thing is very unsatisfactory indeed. If someone were to do a straw-poll at somewhere like Biggleswade or Hitchin as to whether they want through services beyond King’s Cross or reliability they would choose the latter.

Perhaps there’s a case for ditching Moorgate except as some kind of frequent shuttle service, and running the whole GN suburban network as either King’s Cross or Thameslink core services, with a minimum train length of 8 cars. To achieve this would of course need some platform extensions in a few places. Hertford-Rainham anyone?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Bring back Littlehampton !

 

[Failed Unit]

In the case of the GN side, a partial explanation for this is possibly that the GN’s inner-suburban service has tended to be a bit unusual in that it doesn’t actually carry vast numbers of people. I’d say this is for two reasons:
(1) that much of the inner-suburban service has been hived off to LU (High Barnet, Edgware) or has stiff competition from nearby LU lines which are able to offer a far more frequent service (Northern and Piccadilly lines). The GN main line out to Welwyn is very much affected by this, the Hertford line slightly less so.
(2) The decision to run GN inner-suburban trains into Moorgate whilst convenient for commuters has essentially fixed the train formations at 120 metres, which is comparatively short for metro operations.

This has essentially given us the situation where there aren’t many GN metro services which could realistically be sent into the Thameslink network, without abandoning Moorgate.

The problem with Thameslink isn’t so much the through journey opportunities, but the fact that the network has been designed in such a way that certain places have no alternative. Bedford and Luton have EMR, Cambridge has three different alternative half-hourly London options. But if you happen to use one of the many stations for whom Thameslink is the only option then the whole thing is very unsatisfactory indeed. If someone were to do a straw-poll at somewhere like Biggleswade or Hitchin as to whether they want through services beyond King’s Cross or reliability they would choose the latter.

Perhaps there’s a case for ditching Moorgate except as some kind of frequent shuttle service, and running the whole GN suburban network as either King’s Cross or Thameslink core services, with a minimum train length of 8 cars. To achieve this would of course need some platform extensions in a few places. Hertford-Rainham anyone?

If you look at the peak-time only service it is actually interesting. Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks

A lot of people at WGC wait specifically for this service, but this could be because the Cambridge - London services are getting full so you are certain to get a peak. As it heads toward the city by New Barnet it has caught up with a Moorgate service, having use the x23 & x53, again a large amount of people stay on the platform and wait for the Sevenoaks service.

When I join at Welwyn Garden City you get a reasonable number of people that head to both Farringdon and Blackfairs. A lot join at Finsbury Park, but I don’t know if they are just taking the first train into the core or if they want the Sevenoaks.

I don’t know of anyone that wonders why that service exists, its demand seems to be increasing. Out of the 3 services from Welwyn Garden City, I pick depending on my ultimate destination. Kings Cross I use the “2C” because I prefer the trains, The City I go form Moorgate. Stations where I want the Hammersmith and City, Thameslink, Elizabeth Line or District Lines I use the sevenoaks service.

Could it run all day without disrupting the core? Probably, however it is one of the first to be turned at Blackfriars.
Would people prefer that to a 15 minute Moorgate service all day? Unsure - I would for the better interchange options. I know you can change at Moorgate for tube and Elizabeth line but Farringdon seems better.
Would it be a good use of stock? Hard to tell, it is rarely full in the peak.
Would the people from Sevenoaks route like it? I suspect they would appreciate direct trains to Farringdon and St Pancras all day, however I doubt anyone will do end to end. I have heard there is a reasonable flow Denmark hill to north of Blackfriars.

 

[Magdalia]

Thameslink is a mainline route!

And has been since its inception in 1988. Bedford-Brighton was the backbone of Thameslink in 1988 and still is now.

Why is it essential for Hertfordshire to have a direct service to East Croydon but not - say - Essex or Buckinghamshire? The only difference is of course that people will to some extent have adapted their travel patterns because of Thameslink.

The key point is that, starting in 1988, the long distance traffic generated the passengers and the revenue. In the first year after Thameslink opened there was 11% growth on the Bedford line.

I'd also note that the attempt to serve lots of mainline destinations also leaves stations between Kentish Town and Mill Hill Broadway with a (by London standards) rather poor service due to so many trains running non-stop through them, but I'm sure infrastructure issues and lack of capacity on the MML contributes to that.

The Canal Tunnel onto the GN is there to provide enough north of the river destinations for 24 tph, the MML on its own doesn't have the capacity for that. Putting the long distance GN trains through the core also has the advantage of releasing platform capacity at Kings Cross for more ECML trains.

the GN’s inner-suburban service has tended to be a bit unusual in that it doesn’t actually carry vast numbers of people. I’d say this is for two reasons:
(1) that much of the inner-suburban service has been hived off to LU (High Barnet, Edgware) or has stiff competition from nearby LU lines which are able to offer a far more frequent service (Northern and Piccadilly lines). The GN main line out to Welwyn is very much affected by this, the Hertford line slightly less so.
(2) The decision to run GN inner-suburban trains into Moorgate whilst convenient for commuters has essentially fixed the train formations at 120 metres, which is comparatively short for metro operations.

That's a good summary. I'd add that, out as far as Winchmore Hill, the Piccadilly line is an alternative to the Hertford loop, and both the Enfield area and Hertford have Liverpool Street alternatives.

running the whole GN suburban network as either King’s Cross or Thameslink core services, with a minimum train length of 8 cars. To achieve this would of course need some platform extensions in a few places

Platform extensions in lots of places!

My solution would not be to extend all of the platforms on the Hertford loop. Instead rebuild Gordon Hill as an 8 car station with two terminal platforms in the middle and the through lines on the outside. Then have 2tph Welwyn-Sevenoaks and 2tph Gordon Hill-Orpington which would give 4tph Alexandra Palace-Bromley South. Moorgate would keep 2tph to Welwyn and 2tph to Stevenage via Hertford, so Welwyn and Gordon Hill-Finsbury Park would also be 4tph.

The bit I haven't worked out is where to put the Peterborough trains, if they no longer go through the core!

And thats because only about half the drivers (and thus trains they drive) are trained on ATO. When they are, 120 second headways will be much more common. As it happens my train hime yesterday arrived at St P 60 seconds after the previous service had departed (wheels start rolling). Had my train not been early, we could easily have left in under a minute of dwell, ie less than 120 seconds headway. (Yes, both services were in ATO).

ATO does make a difference, but it makes least difference when and where it matters most. St Pancras going north I'd say was the easiest station in the core to achieve a 120 seconds interval, because every train is coming in from a relatively long run from Farringdon, with most running in without coming to a stand, and it has spacious platforms. It is more difficult to achieve a 60 seconds reoccupation time if the following train is coming in off a red light outside the station. I have watched this going northbound at Blackfriars, with its mix of trains coming from either London Bridge or Elephant. And less than 60 seconds of dwell is much more difficult to achieve at Farringdon or City Thameslink than at St Pancras. Most Thameslink users know about Farringdon, but City Thameslink has surprisingly narrow, and hence crowded, platforms, for a modern station.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is more difficult to achieve a 60 seconds reoccupation time if the following train is coming in off a red light outside the station.

My train last night was waiting at a red signal (actually, block marker). However yiu make some good points about dwells.

 

[stevieinselby]

Why is it essential for Hertfordshire to have a direct service to East Croydon but not - say - Essex or Buckinghamshire? The only difference is of course that people will to some extent have adapted their travel patterns because of Thameslink.

It certainly does seem unusual for longish-distance trains to be the ones that cross right through the city while lots of the metro trains terminate, and to my mind it would make more sense to be the other way round, since having metro trains running through the core tends to give much greater connectivity between different parts of the city.

Part of it is supporting existing travel patterns that have developed because the service has existed for a long time, but part of it is just about having a range of destinations.
East Croydon now has direct services to Watford Junction, Bedford, Peterborough and Cambridge. It isn't that those places specifically have more intrinsic demand to Croydon than Reading or Colchester, but that's just how the service pattern has developed. But for me, one of the key things about Thameslink and why it works so well as a regional service across London is the connection to Luton and Gatwick airports, making them easily accessible to a much greater range of passengers without needing to cross London on the Underground.

I get what you mean about cross-city services usually being metro rather than regional, but the next question there is ... what metro services from north London would you feed through the Thameslink corridor? Most of the trains running on the MML and ECML are regional trains rather than metro trains. The St Albans to Sutton branch already does provide a metro service. Beyond that, without wholesale reconstruction of the entire north London rail network, there isn't really any other option to the regional trains from Bedford, Peterborough and Cambridge. So either you continue to run them as regional trains through into Kent, Surrey and Sussex or you have them morph from being regional trains in the northern home counties into metro trains to Dartford, Orpington, Croydon etc., and I'm not sure that's a better solution.

Either way, it comes down to the historic disparity where south London had lots of overground lines terminating along the river, and north London had lots of underground lines.

 

[mangyiscute]

I think a lot of the suburban lines are routed in ways that would make it quite difficult to attach them onto thameslink services - for example, trains through Balham/Streatham Hill can't then join Thameslink, so those are already suburban services that have to go to Victoria. Similarly, trains through East Dulwich kind of have to terminate at London Bridge, because otherwise they have to cross a lot of lines on the flat before London Bridge which would be disastrous for reliability, if you could even make space in the first place.
Meanwhile, the services from a bit further out give you more flexibility on the route they go along when they reach London, so you can route them into London via either of the main routes - into Victoria, or into London Bridge either terminating or onto Thameslink. Both routes currently get good service, which is clearly how it should be.

North of the River, platform terminating space is the limiting factor, with suburban trains either going through Thameslink already or going to Moorgate, which can only fit 6 car trains and hence wouldn't be suitable for the busier services that currently go through Thameslink.

 

[SynthD]

I almost think that thameslink is too long and complicated and should be cut down

free up space at lets say London Victoria by running metro services through the thameslink core

Do you intend to remove more than you add?

Some of the routes that exist are because the infrastructure exists. It’s not end to end passenger demand.

 

[AM9]

Why is it essential for Hertfordshire to have a direct service to East Croydon but not - say - Essex or Buckinghamshire? The only difference is of course that people will to some extent have adapted their travel patterns because of Thameslink.

It certainly does seem unusual for longish-distance trains to be the ones that cross right through the city while lots of the metro trains terminate, and to my mind it would make more sense to be the other way round, since having metro trains running through the core tends to give much greater connectivity between different parts of the city.

The argument is also that the sheer number of different places Thameslink attempts to serve make it much more prone to disruption, so maybe a more Elizabeth-line-style of operations would be more robust. It would certainly make the core more useful if a smaller number of metro destinations resulted in an evenly spaced timetable. I'd also note that the attempt to serve lots of mainline destinations also leaves stations between Kentish Town and Mill Hill Broadway with a (by London standards) rather poor service due to so many trains running non-stop through them, but I'm sure infrastructure issues and lack of capacity on the MML contributes to that. Ditto stations via Elephant and Castle on the Sutton loop.

In the 40+ years since the Thameslink route was opened, (at relatively low cost) it attracted a significant proportion of through central London patronage precisesly because it didn't involve changing trains and in some cases, quite long walks between National Rail and LU platforms. The terminatioin of (surface) metro trains at the same central London terminals that the regional/inter-city trains taking the same rail corridors to London use is just a feature of the history of rail in London. The city fathers preventing penetration of the main lines into the centre meant that with the exception of underground lines, alll other metro services had no choice than to terminate instead of through running. We are now in a 21st century world where the benefits of through running have been demonstrated in many other developed systems, and finally, the long proposed high capacity through lines are being realised, - first, Thameslink, and secondly Crossrail (1). If rail remains a viable mass transit mode, eventually, Crossrail 2 and maybe more will happen.

 

[30907]

The only possible change south of the river would be to switch some services onto SE routes, which would be difficult to path. It would be easier to switch routes via Forest Hill but you'd be limited to 8 cars.

 

[Transilien]

I don't think that the service on Thameslink should be reduced. I just think that it may be better as a more simplified 'crossrail' type of line which could be run by TFL and provide a better service to South London and an alternative to the Northern Line on both sides of the Thames with not so many branches and instead a very frequent service on a 2 or 3 branches north and south of the Thames. These 'regional' connections may be important for some but I don't think it is as common for someone to commute just over 100 miles from Horsham-Peterborough compared to from Croydon-Luton which is 37 miles. So why do these towns need direct services to each other when most who live there only want to get to the capital? Anyway, people who need to travel from Horsham-Peterborough could change onto Thameslink to get through London faster than the Tube. These services may exist for operational convenience but it makes Thameslink a commuter type train that travels inter-city distances. The class 700s are a clear sign of this identity crisis with their interior design seeming to cater to the most common type of trip on Thameslink that being short hops in the London area with the ironing board seating and lack of catering. You can tell that the people who specced the interior of these trains were thinking that thameslink was a crossrail type service. (I do think the class 700's are good trains just not for 100 mile long journeys!).

The routes after simplification of the service could be Three Bridges-Luton (so Gatwick and Luton Airports could still be linked), Three Bridges-Stevenage Sutton loop-Luton and Caterham-Stevenage.

 

[AM9]

I don't think that the service on Thameslink should be reduced. I just think that it may be better as a more simplified 'crossrail' type of line which could be run by TFL and provide a better service to South London and an alternative to the Northern Line on both sides of the Thames with not so many branches and instead a very frequent service on a 2 or 3 branches north and south of the Thames. These 'regional' connections may be important for some but I don't think it is as common for someone to commute just over 100 miles from Horsham-Peterborough compared to from Croydon-Luton which is 37 miles. So why do these towns need direct services to each other when most who live there only want to get to the capital? Anyway, people who need to travel from Horsham-Peterborough could change onto Thameslink to get through London faster than the Tube. These services may exist for operational convenience but it makes Thameslink a commuter type train that travels inter-city distances. The class 700s are a clear sign of this identity crisis with their interior design seeming to cater to the most common type of trip on Thameslink that being short hops in the London area with the ironing board seating and lack of catering. You can tell that the people who specced the interior of these trains were thinking that thameslink was a crossrail type service. (I do think the class 700's are good trains just not for 100 mile long journeys!).

You really should read some of the previous threads on this topic, - they all make it quite clear, very few journeys made by passengers on Thameslink involve travel between the ends of each services, e.g. Cambridge-Brighton, Luton-Rainham, Horsham-Peterborough, Bedford-Brighton etc.. The trains carry vast numbers of passengers at times, (in excess of 1500 per 12-car train) and because paths are very tight on all three express routes out of London, the stock is designed to permit rapid ingress and egress allowing very short dwells at stations.
Even if there was a need to turn non-metro services back in central London instead of running through, where would you do that? Only St Pancras has north facing terminating platforms, - just four of them! They are already fully committed accommodating EMR trains. Try adding another 15 trains per hour in the peak, - mmmm, what a disaster that would be. The same issue applies at London Bridge, there just isn't the space. The timetable runs efficiently as a double ended operation, each train turning at railheads both north and south of London.

 

[Transilien]

Definitely the thing limiting Thameslink becoming ‘Crossrail 2’ would be a lack of space at St Pancras and King’s Cross for regional services. These stations seem to be big enough only for inter-city services and limited stopping services like EMR connect.

 

[bramling]

You really should read some of the previous threads on this topic, - they all make it quite clear, very few journeys made by passengers on Thameslink involve travel between the ends of each services, e.g. Cambridge-Brighton, Luton-Rainham, Horsham-Peterborough, Bedford-Brighton etc.. The trains carry vast numbers of passengers at times, (in excess of 1500 per 12-car train) and because paths are very tight on all three express routes out of London, the stock is designed to permit rapid ingress and egress allowing very short dwells at stations.
Even if there was a need to turn non-metro services back in central London instead of running through, where would you do that? Only St Pancras has north facing terminating platforms, - just four of them! They are already fully committed accommodating EMR trains. Try adding another 15 trains per hour in the peak, - mmmm, what a disaster that would be. The same issue applies at London Bridge, there just isn't the space. The timetable runs efficiently as a double ended operation, each train turning at railheads both north and south of London.

Perhaps St Pancras shouldn’t have been re-purposed as a Eurostar station without making adequate provision for the Midland main line.

Same with King’s Cross. It isn’t a given that outer suburban services *have* to be moved aside to make way for long-distance services. It’s a political *choice*. And this is made less justifiable by the numbers of 5-car trains using King’s Cross by the open access operators, and indeed increasingly by LNER it seems. A (comparative) handful of people travelling to/from Lincoln, for example, shouldn’t take precedence over the large numbers travelling to/from the Home Counties.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps St Pancras shouldn’t have been re-purposed as a Eurostar station without making adequate provision for the Midland main line.

Same with King’s Cross. It isn’t a given that outer suburban services *have* to be moved aside to make way for long-distance services. It’s a political *choice*. And this is made less justifiable by the numbers of 5-car trains using King’s Cross by the open access operators, and indeed increasingly by LNER it seems. A (comparative) handful of people travelling to/from Lincoln, for example, shouldn’t take precedence over the large numbers travelling to/from the Home Counties.

The lack of terminating locations isn't the only reason that trains run through the core. As we know, many commuter journeys are from residential towns to work areas on the opposite of central London, e.g. St Albans or Stevenage to London Bridge and East Croydon. Or in the opposite direction, from various dormitory towns along the BML to West Hampstead or Werlwyn Garden City. Such patterns are also common on Crossrail where Stratford, Canary Wharf, Heathrow and Ealing are work destinations from outer suburban areas such as Reading, Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood. As far as politics are concerned, I think the Kings Cross to hrough core changes are below the noise level, the fact is that the original Thameslink Bedford to Brighton proved a sizeable market for cross central London commuting, and similarly that is being replicated on the ECML as well.

 

[bramling]

The lack of terminating locations isn't the only reason that trains run through the core. As we know, many commuter journeys are from residential towns to work areas on the opposite of central London, e.g. St Albans or Stevenage to London Bridge and East Croydon. Or in the opposite direction, from various dormitory towns along the BML to West Hampstead or Werlwyn Garden City. Such patterns are also common on Crossrail where Stratford, Canary Wharf, Heathrow and Ealing are work destinations from outer suburban areas such as Reading, Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood. As far as politics are concerned, I think the Kings Cross to hrough core changes are below the noise level, the fact is that the original Thameslink Bedford to Brighton proved a sizeable market for cross central London commuting, and similarly that is being replicated on the ECML as well.

That’s a different argument though. If you’re saying that it’s *desirable* that *some* services run through the core, then fine I’m not going to disagree.

But the argument that all outer-suburban services *have* to run through the core (to free up space at KX) is completely different, and isn’t true. It’s a political choice to do so.

For all the extra economic benefits of slightly easier access to a greater range of destinations, there’s economic disbenefits caused by the poorer dependability. Quite wide disbenefits when we consider the absolutely massive area Thameslink covers and the fact that one single incident anywhere on that network can cause chaos.

I’d say the needs of the large number of users between Hitchin and Peterborough alone should be more important than a small number of people avoiding having to change at Newark for Lincoln.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One other point that's occurred to me: The service through the core isn't actually that high a frequency: I just checked the timetables and it looks to me like, off-peak weekdays you have:

Through the full core from St Pancras to London Bridge:
2tph Luton-Rainham
4tph Bedford-Three Bridges/Brighton
2tph Cambridge-Brighton
2tph Peterborough-Horsham

Through most of the core: St Pancras-Blackfriars
4tph St Albans-Sutton

Blackfriars-Elephant & Castle only
2tph Blackfriars-Sevenoaks

That's only 10tph (irregularly spaced) running along the full zone 1 bit - which seems pretty poor considering it's the only mainline railway that crosses central London N-S. I realise frequencies are a bit higher during the peaks, but even so. Contrast that with the Elizabeth line which in Zone 1 manages 16tph (at completely regular 3-4 minute intervals) off-peak going up to 24tph in the peaks.

Maybe one improvement would be to terminate all Sutton loop services at Blackfriars, and instead have the 4tph from St Albans run through to London Bridge where they could take over some Southern services through Norwood Junction. Then at least everything through the core would serve London Bridge. Not only that, but it might reduce the number of places that can contribute to disruption on Thameslink, and would remove some conflicting moves at Blackfriars and perhaps allow better frequencies on the Sutton loop too.

 

[mangyiscute]

That’s a different argument though. If you’re saying that it’s *desirable* that *some* services run through the core, then fine I’m not going to disagree.

But the argument that all outer-suburban services *have* to run through the core (to free up space at KX) is completely different, and isn’t true. It’s a political choice to do so.

For all the extra economic benefits of slightly easier access to a greater range of destinations, there’s economic disbenefits caused by the poorer dependability. Quite wide disbenefits when we consider the absolutely massive area Thameslink covers and the fact that one single incident anywhere on that network can cause chaos.

I’d say the needs of the large number of users between Hitchin and Peterborough alone should be more important than a small number of people avoiding having to change at Newark for Lincoln.

Although you are now suggesting that the only purpose the Lincoln trains serve is direct travel to Lincoln, which is clearly untrue since it also provide one of the fast services for Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham and Newark - you couldn't take this train out of the timetable without messing it up and causing overloading on other trains which are already busy with longer distance passengers. Perhaps there's a case for all of these trains to run to York and none to Lincoln, but that wouldn't change anything at King's Cross, and I don't think cutting capacity on the ECML is a particularly smart idea.
Furthermore, the 5 coach trains often share platforms at King's Cross, so they don't limit capacity as much as you are suggesting.

 

[Magdalia]

Furthermore, the 5 coach trains often share platforms at King's Cross, so they don't limit capacity as much as you are suggesting.

Where the 5 car trains are a poor use of capacity is in the 2 track sections over Digswell Viaduct and Holme Fen, but that's an ECML issue not a Thameslink issue.

Creating platform capacity at Kings Cross for Peterborough trains, so that they didn't need to go through the core, could be done by running more ECML 5 car trains, not fewer, because that would allow for more platform sharing. I'm not suggesting that, just using it to illustrate the point.

 

[43074]

That's only 10tph (irregularly spaced) running along the full zone 1 bit - which seems pretty poor considering it's the only mainline railway that crosses central London N-S. I realise frequencies are a bit higher during the peaks, but even so. Contrast that with the Elizabeth line which in Zone 1 manages 16tph (at completely regular 3-4 minute intervals) off-peak going up to 24tph in the peaks.

Comparing Thameslink to the Elizabeth Line isn't that helpful (also applies to the idea in the first post) as the Elizabeth Line is much more intended for travel wholly within London - Reading and Maidenhead are outliers to that, but Thameslink is a mainline railway which extends to Cambridge, Peterborough, Bedford, Brighton, Horsham and so on. It's purpose is to get people from those towns and cities to London, rather than to serve customers travelling wholly within Zone 1 which the Northern line serves much better.

 

[AM9]

Maybe one improvement would be to terminate all Sutton loop services at Blackfriars, and instead have the 4tph from St Albans run through to London Bridge where they could take over some Southern services through Norwood Junction. Then at least everything through the core would serve London Bridge. Not only that, but it might reduce the number of places that can contribute to disruption on Thameslink, and would remove some conflicting moves at Blackfriars and perhaps allow better frequencies on the Sutton loop too.

The original service planned for the Sutton Loop was going to terminate at Blackfriars, but in 2013 a certain Wimbledon MP, (Stephen Hammond) campaigned for a through service from his constituency to St Pancras and St Albans. The government were only too pleased to oblige as it meant the mix of 12 vs 8-car class 700s being adjusted in favour of more 8-car, - a saving of 40 cars, how convenient! As far as delays are concerned, most of them emanate from the LBSC mainline, particularly north of Gatwick and through the EastCroydon/Selhurst Triangle complex.

 

[Transilien]

Maybe then Thameslink should go the other way and carry inter-city traffic through London to provide capacity in Kings Cross and St Pancras Station with for example, services from Sheffield terminating at Brighton freeing up space in St Pancras for Eurostar expansion and boosting connectivity between the north and south of England.

 

[30907]

One other point that's occurred to me: The service through the core isn't actually that high a frequency: I just checked the timetables and it looks to me like, off-peak weekdays you have:

Through the full core from St Pancras to London Bridge:
2tph Luton-Rainham
4tph Bedford-Three Bridges/Brighton
2tph Cambridge-Brighton
2tph Peterborough-Horsham

Through most of the core: St Pancras-Blackfriars
4tph St Albans-Sutton

AFAIK it was always intended for some services to be routed via Elephant, just not to Sutton. The pre Covid offpeak service was 16tph.

Maybe one improvement would be to terminate all Sutton loop services at Blackfriars, and instead have the 4tph from St Albans run through to London Bridge where they could take over some Southern services through Norwood Junction. Then at least everything through the core would serve London Bridge. Not only that, but it might reduce the number of places that can contribute to disruption on Thameslink, and would remove some conflicting moves at Blackfriars and perhaps allow better frequencies on the Sutton loop too.

You would struggle with terminating all the Suttons, all the Catford Loops (4tph pre Covid) and the SE peak trains at Blackfriars (4tph pre Covid*) with only 2 platforms.

*2tph are now partly covered by the CHX-Maidstones though.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I have always liked the idea of pruning Thameslink back to Bedford to Brighton and converting the route into a new Overground spine. Possibly with the Welwyn Great Northern Electrics service and perhaps one of the Dartford suburban branches in there as well. Probably wouldn't remotely help reliability though.

 

[43074]

Maybe then Thameslink should go the other way and carry inter-city traffic through London to provide capacity in Kings Cross and St Pancras Station with for example, services from Sheffield terminating at Brighton freeing up space in St Pancras for Eurostar expansion and boosting connectivity between the north and south of England.

How does this improve reliability, and what problem are you trying to solve?

 

[Transilien]

It definitely dosen't improve reliability but if Thameslink is a mainline service then why can't we run more mainline trains through the core in a Berlin Stadtbahn style situation. In my personal opinion it would not be as effective as a crossrail type service but would be a better use of the core infrastucture through London. I guess the stadtbahn concept would be to resolve the underuse of the Thamelink core as it can handle up to 24tph but never does despite all the upgrades it got in the Thameslink programme.

 

[mangyiscute]

So we start with complaints about how Thameslink is unreliable and we should therefore remove trains from the core, and now we have the suggestion that instead, we should add more trains running through the core, and intercity trains that have come from all over the country, which will surely destroy any sense of reliability that remains.