Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Surely two platforms can cope with 6tph of metro trains? Abbey Wood copes with 12tph terminating in the peaks on two platforms (plus one platform extending into a siding). I could see the point if you additionally tried to increase Sutton loop frequencies. And some places on LUL manage to terminate something like 20tph with 3 platforms.

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.

I think that would damage reliability even more without improving services. Also, you'd have the (huge) problem that the Sheffield trains are designed for very long distance travel and so have end-carriage doors that don't allow fast boarding, and would therefore basically destroy capacity when hundreds of short-distance commuters try to board the train at - say - Farringdon or City Thameslink with another train waiting a few minutes behind.

 

[SynthD]

Thameslink takes slow line trains only, to not spread delays to fast services. The slow/fast line distinction is weak in the south but clear in the north. Even if you could identify which half service (one side of the core) causes delays, is there anything you could swap it with?

 

[43074]

Thameslink takes slow line trains only, to not spread delays to fast services. The slow/fast line distinction is weak in the south but clear in the north. Even if you could identify which half service (one side of the core) causes delays, is there anything you could swap it with?

Which services are you proposing to remove to make that work and how much capacity would remain for freight on the MML slow lines in particular?

Worth saying as much of a problem is delays from fast services spreading to Thameslink so it cuts both ways!

 

[Crithylum]

And some places on LUL manage to terminate something like 20tph with 3 platforms

Brixton handles 36, with 2 platforms
Although the Victoria line has the advantage of being an insulated system (no timetabling slack), without a publicised timetable, operating 130m long trains, with ridiculous acceleration and copious numbers of doors, with overrun tunnels to allow trains to pull in at near line speed, on a heavily optimised ATO with stepping back of drivers

Basically unfeasable to do anything near this reliably on TL
12 tph on 2 platforms may be more realistic, allowing ~7 minute dwells and 3 minutes for the train to leave and the next to arrive

 

[AlbertBeale]

Brixton handles 36, with 2 platforms
Although the Victoria line has the advantage of being an insulated system (no timetabling slack), without a publicised timetable, operating 130m long trains, with ridiculous acceleration and copious numbers of doors, with overrun tunnels to allow trains to pull in at near line speed, on a heavily optimised ATO with stepping back of drivers

Basically unfeasable to do anything near this reliably on TL
12 tph on 2 platforms may be more realistic, allowing ~7 minute dwells and 3 minutes for the train to leave and the next to arrive

Maybe they should have reused more of the old Blackfriars Bridge infrastructure, and had 3 terminating platforms rather than just the 2, so as to allow more services to turn back there? There certainly seems to be unused capacity on the route south through E&C, and a more metro-style service could see one or both of the long-disused stations between Elephant and Loughborough Junction back in use. (That part of south London could do with it, especially since the plans for a Bakerloo Line extension have been switched to run east from E&C rather than south, and the sometimes-touted extra Northern Line route to the south - in the general direction of Camberwell - got sent to Battersea instead at the behest of property investors.) It might even mean that the Sutton loop got 4 tph each way instead of the current 2 (junctions en route permitting!), so it's more of a Turn Up and Go option, and half of them at least could then terminate at Blackfriars instead of needing extra trains running through the core.

 

[mangyiscute]

Basically unfeasable to do anything near this reliably on TL
12 tph on 2 platforms may be more realistic, allowing ~7 minute dwells and 3 minutes for the train to leave and the next to arrive

Although if the aim is to increase reliability, I don't think that'll be achieved by trying to terminate 12tph in 2 platforms which such short turnarounds, and as delay on any of these lines will then surely cause delays to the rest of the lines.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Although if the aim is to increase reliability, I don't think that'll be achieved by trying to terminate 12tph in 2 platforms which such short turnarounds, and as delay on any of these lines will then surely cause delays to the rest of the lines.

Except that, if all trains from Elephant and Castle terminate at Blackfriars, then they are separated from the core, so any delays to those trains should have no impact on trains running between St Pancras and London Bridge.

 

[30907]

Surely two platforms can cope with 6tph of metro trains? Abbey Wood copes with 12tph terminating in the peaks on two platforms (plus one platform extending into a siding).

Yes, easily, but via Elephant is minimum 10tph in the peak, 12 pre Covid.
Charing X with uniform EPB stock coped with 14-15tph in the 3 Slow line platforms; in practical term 4tph per platform is more sensible without Metro type stock.

Except that, if all trains from Elephant and Castle terminate at Blackfriars, then they are separated from the core, so any delays to those trains should have no impact on trains running between St Pancras and London Bridge.

It would be do-able (with 10tph only) but a challenge - and you've then got 6tph more through the core going via LBG, and needing destinations, which is a second challenge.

 

[Richardr]

Are the two Blackfriars terminating platforms well used today?

 

[PGAT]

Are the two Blackfriars terminating platforms well used today?

2tph max it seems. 2 from Sevenoaks off-peak but when they get extended to Welwyn in the peak the Southeastern trains from Beckenham Junction use them

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

In particular, now, Thameslink providing direct access to Crossrail at Farringdon massively improves connectivity between north/south and east/west.

Ultimately a lot of it comes down to the fact that we're not starting from a blank slate, and while this might not be how we would design a system from scratch, this has grown organically over the last 150 years and it has shaped people's travel patterns as much as it has been shaped by people's travel patterns ... so doing a complete etch-a-sketch reset and severing services and connections that have been running for decades would have a massively negative impact on the travelling public, even if the resulting network looked ostensibly more logical and coherent.

 

[bramling]

In particular, now, Thameslink providing direct access to Crossrail at Farringdon massively improves connectivity between north/south and east/west.

Ultimately a lot of it comes down to the fact that we're not starting from a blank slate, and while this might not be how we would design a system from scratch, this has grown organically over the last 150 years and it has shaped people's travel patterns as much as it has been shaped by people's travel patterns ... so doing a complete etch-a-sketch reset and severing services and connections that have been running for decades would have a massively negative impact on the travelling public, even if the resulting network looked ostensibly more logical and coherent.

Yet this is essentially exactly what has happened on GN. Since 2018 the London service from Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire has become very unreliable. If you can’t rely on a service then it’s as good as useless, so is no better than severing a connection. Fortunately there’s the A1(M) to pick up the slack.

 

[Transilien]

This makes me wonder why the Canal Tunnels were needed; it just seems to make the reliability problems on Thameslink worse and the service more complicated and less Frequent. The Thamelink programme seemed to be over ambitious in its aims to connect as many towns as possible directly. It may have been a better goal to double down on the Bedford-Brighton core route and run more frequent metro services with the capacity upgrade to provide a decent alternative to the Northern Line like Crossrail has with the Central Line. Perhaps instead of running some Great Northern fast services through the Thameslink core they could have ran to Moorgate with extra Platforms being built for terminating services and an ECTS Upgrade to the Northern City Line in order to decongest London Kings Cross.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps instead of running some Great Northern fast services through the Thameslink core they could have ran to Moorgate with extra Platforms being built for terminating services and an ECTS Upgrade to the Northern City Line in order to decongest London Kings Cross.

Moorgate has a limit of six coach operation. Building extra platforms there would be near impossible and those passengers need to disperse safely. The whole point of running GN services onto Thameslink was to facilitate 12 coach trains at places like Stevenage and Hitchin in a similar manner to those at St Albans.

This makes me wonder why the Canal Tunnels were needed;

There was nowhere to build extra 12 coach platforms at Kings Cross (other than the one they actually built).

As pointed out above, when planning developments on the railway account needs to be taken of existing travel patterns and geography. The big flows on the the GN are from Stevenage and Hitchin to London.

 

[30907]

This makes me wonder why the Canal Tunnels were needed; it just seems to make the reliability problems on Thameslink worse and the service more complicated and less Frequent. The Thamelink programme seemed to be over ambitious in its aims to connect as many towns as possible directly. It may have been a better goal to double down on the Bedford-Brighton core route and run more frequent metro services with the capacity upgrade to provide a decent alternative to the Northern Line like Crossrail has with the Central Line.

But to provide that Crossrail-like service through the core you need 20tph at least - can the Bedford route justify that frequency (especially the NW London stations)? It certainly couldn't when Thameslink 2000 (note the date) was planned!

Perhaps instead of running some Great Northern fast services through the Thameslink core they could have ran to Moorgate with extra Platforms being built for terminating services and an ECTS Upgrade to the Northern City Line in order to decongest London Kings Cross.

Two underground platforms for 12-car trains wouldn't come cheap, and even if you ran (slowly) through the likes of Essex Road you would surely want to call at Highbury.

 

[Transilien]

can the Bedford route justify that frequency (especially the NW London stations)?

The very reason that these stations are under-utilised is that there is a lack of service compared to the Northern line which is very close to the MML in many places on the Edgware Branch which has 20tph compared to Thameslink's 8tph on smaller stations on the route North West London.

Two underground platforms for 12-car trains wouldn't come cheap

Would it be that much more expensive compared to the Canal Tunnels which haven't helped reliability and provided new journey opportunities to few people, as it has been established that few people actually use Thameslink end to end and most use it within London or to get to London. Moorgate would be closer to the city than King's Cross and provide interchange with Crossrail without damaging reliability on Thameslink.

 

[BrianW]

The very reason that these stations are under-utilised is that there is a lack of service compared to the Northern line which is very close to the MML in many places on the Edgware Branch which has 20tph compared to Thameslink's 8tph on smaller stations on the route North West London.


Would it be that much more expensive compared to the Canal Tunnels which haven't helped reliability and provided new journey opportunities to few people, as it has been established that few people actually use Thameslink end to end and most use it within London or to get to London. Moorgate would be closer to the city than King's Cross and provide interchange with Crossrail without damaging reliability on Thameslink.

Perhaps the maximisation of use of capacity Farringdon- Blackfriars REQUIRES a mutiplicity of places to be connected north and south- it must have been a very complex consideration, let alone the complications of electrical 'systems' (3rail, 4 rail, OH) and of signalling, as the 'teething 'problems illustrated well. It's another balance between frequencies and reliability of service, with further complexities of crew and stock availability. It's a wonder it works at all. IMHO, the tube's Northern Line is a piece of cake by comparison, even with Edgware and High Barnet branches and via Bank and Charing Cross!

When people propose changes they can easily forget, if they ever knew, some of the reasons why things are as they are. Not to never change but to really think it through.

 

[JonathanH]

Would it be that much more expensive compared to the Canal Tunnels which haven't helped reliability and provided new journey opportunities to few people, as it has been established that few people actually use Thameslink end to end and most use it within London or to get to London

Few people use the Northern Line to travel from High Barnet to Morden. Thameslink has five central London stations so that people can choose which one to travel to.

There are actually many people who use Thameslink to reach Gatwick Airport from the North, as the success of the Cambridge to Brighton service has shown.

The very reason that these stations are under-utilised is that there is a lack of service compared to the Northern line which is very close to the MML in many places on the Edgware Branch which has 20tph compared to Thameslink's 8tph on smaller stations on the route North West London.

There is also the fact that the M1 runs on one side of the Bedford line and there was traditionally industry and warehouses on the western side. The route has never justified an intensive inner suburban service, long before running through London was thought of.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Brixton handles 36, with 2 platforms
Although the Victoria line has the advantage of being an insulated system (no timetabling slack), without a publicised timetable, operating 130m long trains, with ridiculous acceleration and copious numbers of doors, with overrun tunnels to allow trains to pull in at near line speed, on a heavily optimised ATO with stepping back of drivers

Basically unfeasable to do anything near this reliably on TL
12 tph on 2 platforms may be more realistic, allowing ~7 minute dwells and 3 minutes for the train to leave and the next to arrive

Minimum turnaround for 8 car Thameslink trains is 8 minutes so that won't work. 10 minutes for a 12 car.

 

[Belperpete]

Thameslink does seem purpose designed so that any disruption south of the river is propogated north of the river, and vice versa any disruption on the GN or Midland lines is propogated south of the river. Compared with say the Elizabeth line or most of the overground lines.

Turning more trains back at Blackfriars wouldn't help, and would probably actually make things worse, as it would just introduce more conflicts. Comparison with terminii such as Abbey Wood and Brixton is false, as these places don't have through services to conflict with.

 

[Magdalia]

This makes me wonder why the Canal Tunnels were needed

Simply because the MML on its own does not have capacity for 24tph, and running GN services through the core released platform capacity at Kings Cross.

The big flows on the the GN are from Stevenage and Hitchin to London.

There are actually many people who use Thameslink to reach Gatwick Airport from the North, as the success of the Cambridge to Brighton service has shown.

I think that the biggest single station is Cambridge, though Stevenage and Hitchin are very big. One of the attractions of the 2018 timetable was having 4tph through the core for Hitchin and Stevenage, like St Albans, Luton and Bedford.

The route has never justified an intensive inner suburban service, long before running through London was thought of.

Until modernisation in the 1950s/1960s, the MML suburban service was very sparse, and the slow lines north of Luton were freight only. The MML only became a significant suburban railway after electrification and the opening of Thameslink.

Would it be that much more expensive compared to the Canal Tunnels which haven't helped reliability and provided new journey opportunities to few people, as it has been established that few people actually use Thameslink end to end and most use it within London or to get to London. Moorgate would be closer to the city than King's Cross and provide interchange with Crossrail without damaging reliability on Thameslink.

I use Thameslink from Cambridge to all of the core stations plus East Croydon. Blackfriars and London Bridge are very convenient for the South Bank. Single simple train changes at London Bridge or East Croydon open up journeys to nearly all of Sussex, Surrey and Kent. From observation on my travels, I can see that it has provided new journey opportunities for lots of GN people, I'm definitely not just one of a few. And of course it works the other way too, enabling people from all over the South of England to get to Cambridge more easily. With Cambridge probably the most rapidly growing local economy in the UK, that's very important.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I use Thameslink from Cambridge to all of the core stations plus East Croydon. Blackfriars and London Bridge are very convenient for the South Bank. Single simple train changes at London Bridge or East Croydon open up journeys to nearly all of Sussex, Surrey and Kent. From observation on my travels, I can see that it has provided new journey opportunities for lots of GN people, I'm definitely not just one of a few. And of course it works the other way too, enabling people from all over the South of England to get to Cambridge more easily. With Cambridge probably the most rapidly growing local economy in the UK, that's very important.

Not forgetting the easy change at Farringdon for Paddington and Heathrow now Crossrail has opened.

 

[Blindtraveler]

The easiest revision decision to make should be the removal of TL services from North Kent
They are about as unwelcome as a bin full of dog turds here and reliability is a big factor in that

 

[bramling]

Simply because the MML on its own does not have capacity for 24tph, and running GN services through the core released platform capacity at Kings Cross.



I think that the biggest single station is Cambridge, though Stevenage and Hitchin are very big. One of the attractions of the 2018 timetable was having 4tph through the core for Hitchin and Stevenage, like St Albans, Luton and Bedford.

Until modernisation in the 1950s/1960s, the MML suburban service was very sparse, and the slow lines north of Luton were freight only. The MML only became a significant suburban railway after electrification and the opening of Thameslink.


I use Thameslink from Cambridge to all of the core stations plus East Croydon. Blackfriars and London Bridge are very convenient for the South Bank. Single simple train changes at London Bridge or East Croydon open up journeys to nearly all of Sussex, Surrey and Kent. From observation on my travels, I can see that it has provided new journey opportunities for lots of GN people, I'm definitely not just one of a few. And of course it works the other way too, enabling people from all over the South of England to get to Cambridge more easily. With Cambridge probably the most rapidly growing local economy in the UK, that's very important.

This is unfortunately another aspect which doesn’t work well. As you say, Cambridge is a busy origin and destination, yet the way the service is currently structured means Cambridge passengers heading to the Thameslink core and beyond have to use a service which stops at seven intermediate stops, whilst other users find the trains are more crowded as a result.

This could be re-balanced by having all of the Cambridge fast services call at Letchworth and Royston as a minimum, and possibly Hitchin (though I’m not sure a Hitchin call would work from a timetabling point of view).

 

[JonathanH]

This could be re-balanced by having all of the Cambridge fast services call at Letchworth and Royston as a minimum, and possibly Hitchin (though I’m not sure a Hitchin call would work from a timetabling point of view).

To reduce the attraction of the fast services for Cambridge passengers and those from the Fens? Surely the fact that they run fast from Cambridge to King's Cross and all run with at least 8 coaches proves there are commercial reasons not to fill them with Letchworth and Royston passengers.

 

[bramling]

To reduce the attraction of the fast services for Cambridge passengers and those from the Fens? Surely the fact that they run fast from Cambridge to King's Cross and all run with at least 8 coaches proves there are commercial reasons not to fill them with Letchworth and Royston passengers.

And yet the latter is exactly what they do in the peaks, and at some other times of day as well.

If the view is that Thameslink through services are so important to Cambridge, there surely comes a point where the fast services are less viable than they were in the 1990s? Especially as operationally they are rather difficult to run, especially between Hitchin and Cambridge.

 

[Transilien]

It always seems smarter to me that train services should be more frequent and have less branches for both reliability and dependability. It has been argued in other threads that Inter-city services shouldn't head to so many destinations from London (i.e. Harrogate) and it should be more a hub and spoke model. So if not services on the Great Northern, then what branch could be cut to allow thameslink to be more reliable and frequent?

 

[NorthKent1989]

The easiest revision decision to make should be the removal of TL services from North Kent
They are about as unwelcome as a bin full of dog turds here and reliability is a big factor in that

Agreed, don’t understand the purpose of the Thameslink Rainham service, I know that it was shoved through Greenwich last minute because East Croydon was full, but it’s royally messed up reliability on the North Kent Line has been a major issue since 2018, and it replaced a well used semi fast service which in the age of the Elizabeth line would be handy and fast for Medway/Gravesend, hope to see the day it’s finally removed.

 

[PGAT]

Agreed, don’t understand the purpose of the Thameslink Rainham service, I know that it was shoved through Greenwich last minute because East Croydon was full, but it’s royally messed up reliability on the North Kent Line has been a major issue since 2018, and it replaced a well used semi fast service which in the age of the Elizabeth line would be handy and fast for Medway/Gravesend, hope to see the day it’s finally removed.

It could probably be rerouted back nowadays considering 4tph to Coulsdon Town and Caterham does not exist peak or off-peak

 

[JonathanH]

It could probably be rerouted back nowadays considering 4tph to Coulsdon Town and Caterham does not exist peak or off-peak

Neither do they need to exist. They were just convenient places to terminate trains that would otherwise have cluttered up East Croydon when there wasn't space to terminate there. The Caterham service via Tulse Hill still runs to East Croydon. What use would an extra 8-car to East Croydon be anyway, on to of the existing services?