Thameslink service should be revised to increase reliability

[Bald Rick]

On the MML, I think a Crossrail version of Thameslink should keep the 4tph all stations to St Albans, plus another 4tph semi-fast to Luton. Then the 2tph to Bedford could logically be run by EMR.

There‘s 4tph each direction to/from Bedford, 7tph in the peaks.

There seems to be some spare capacity into Kings Cross

There isn‘t.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I think you could probably just withdraw the Northern City line section with no replacement. It's not particularly well used, the two stations uniquely served by GN (Drayton Park and Essex Road) see very few passengers, and there are good alternatives available. There's the Victoria line from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross, Northern line from Moorgate to Kings Cross (and stations towards Barnet), Overground from Highbury & Islington to Shoreditch, and local buses like the 21.

The Northern City line isn’t the back water line it used to be in the 90s & 00s, since the early 2010s stops along that line have grown exponentially, Old Street is now a destination in its own right.

 

[PeteFLT]

Sorry to reopen a can of worms but
- Is Thameslink to Maidstone east officially dead?
- What was the original plan for where trains from
Maidstone east went?
Feels like the whole line is short of capacity/standing for an hour isn’t much fun

 

[PGAT]

Sorry to reopen a can of worms but
- Is Thameslink to Maidstone east officially dead?
- What was the original plan for where trains from
Maidstone east went?
Feels like the whole line is short of capacity/standing for an hour isn’t much fun

Yes it’s dead and I think they were intended to link up with the Cambridge to King’s cross service which is also dead as it was transferred to Great Northern

 

[cle]

It went into Charing Cross, which is interesting enough - and a new faster link for Maidstone regardless but leaves a gap on the core service. Trick is finding two halves to connect.

The previous plan for a 5th turnback platform at Brent Cross West would have been useful for this - to add inner frequency which might be able to match something on the southern side.

 

[BrianW]

Amazing that this thread is still going- so many possible permutations and combinations ...

I guess the key consideration is still how many trains can be funnelled (reliably?!) into and out of the core.

 

[JonathanH]

leaves a gap on the core service. Trick is finding two halves to connect.

Is there actually an issue for passenger capacity through the core or is the issue just a matter of passengers having to wait longer than once imagined?

 

[MPW]

Is there actually an issue for passenger capacity through the core or is the issue just a matter of passengers having to wait longer than once imagined?

In my opinion the stations in the core (St oancras through thameslink) are not ideal for services which are only 2tph. When there are delays the platform quickly get overcapacity. I feel for the staff at farringdon in particular, whose primary job seems to be shouting at passengers to stand behind the yellow lines.

I think more frequent service to fewer places would reduce that issue.

 

[Transilien]

I think more frequent service to fewer places would reduce that issue.

I agree with this it really should be more of a 'metro' operation rather than a mainline one as I was saying earlier.

 

[PGAT]

Although this requires sending more trains into terminal stations. Probably okay at Blackfriars but places such as King's Cross would struggle. It also eliminates an advantage of through running which requires less units to operate all the routes

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Although this requires sending more trains into terminal stations. Probably okay at Blackfriars but places such as King's Cross would struggle

Trains would have to go via Herne Hill though to get to Blackfriars bays which would make journey times very uncompetitive and badly reck local metro services though the Selhurst and Tulse Hill corridors and huge performance risk at Herne Hill. Plus in the peaks no spare capacity through Herne Hill for non stop Thameslink services.

 

[PGAT]

Trains would have to go via Herne Hill though to get to Blackfriars bays which would make journey times very uncompetitive and badly reck local metro services though the Selhurst and Tulse Hill corridors and huge performance risk at Herne Hill. Plus in the peaks no spare capacity through Herne Hill for non stop Thameslink services.

Non-stop trains are still able to use the route via London Bridge

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Non-stop trains are still able to use the route via London Bridge

They can't get into the Blackfriars bays though if they do which was what you suggested in your post.

 

[Mgameing123]

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.

Absolutely not. Gatwick and Brighton must be served, same as Luton and Bedford.

 

[Bikeman78]

Although this requires sending more trains into terminal stations. Probably okay at Blackfriars but places such as King's Cross would struggle. It also eliminates an advantage of through running which requires less units to operate all the routes

Not true in all cases. Peterborough to Horsham requires 12 units. You could run each half with six units. The Horsham side used to do exactly that.

 

[cle]

The pairs work, on the south side anyway.

On the north, they are just the same pairs which are smartly aligned into 4tphs. The north is simpler - in theory you could have
4tph St Albans (slow)
4tph Luton (semi)
4tph Bedford (fast)

then
4tph Cambridge
4tph P'boro (overkill?)

and we're about done. I think Welwyn should be part of a Moorgate Metro - 6tph and 6tph (3tph to Stevenage)

But south side, it's trickier to do 4s.
4 Brighton
4 Three Bridges / Horsham
4 Sutton
4 Orpington/Sevenoaks

and then it gets messy.

 

[TrenHotel]

You could probably keep Rainham as terminal, frees up Gillingham I guess, as a Charlton resident I think it could lose its stop if the SF were to return a lot of Charlton’s heavy work has largely been taken on by North Greenwich in recent years, I’d probably keep Blackheath though, Blackheath is a good alternative interchange in place of Lewisham, especially if you want the Victoria trains.

The more development takes place on the Greenwich Peninsula - funnelling more and more people into North Greenwich - the more Charlton will need those extra trains close at hand. If you live a bus trip away from North Greenwich, I wouldn't rely on it being a useful route towards central London in future (obviously Stratford is a different matter).

I think the Thameslink Greenwich line trains are useful - it's amazing how many people use it between the Greenwich line and stations in the core - but they are badly implemented and need rethinking, especially if the Greenwich/Woolwich line is lumbered with the post-Covid reduced Southeastern timetable for the foreseeable.

The most aggravating aspect of this is the complete separation between Thameslink and Southeastern - when there's engineering works in/near the core or even further north Thameslink will cut its service through Greenwich and Woolwich to once an hour from London Bridge platform 2, which is laughable for an urban metro service.

I got caught by something else last night after visiting Chatham - I rushed to get the 2210 West Hampstead service, thinking it was my last train home - only to find it was fast from Dartford to London Bridge, with a 22-minute wait at Dartford to pick up a Greenwich line train.

It does seem like Thameslink's service decisions are arbitrary and designed to suit Thameslink and Thameslink alone, with no co-ordination with what Southeastern does, and it's unfortunate that a key route from SE London to Gravesend and the Medway towns - one that could be better utilised with the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood - is in the hands of managers with no real interest in it.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The more development takes place on the Greenwich Peninsula - funnelling more and more people into North Greenwich - the more Charlton will need those extra trains close at hand. If you live a bus trip away from North Greenwich, I wouldn't rely on it being a useful route towards central London in future (obviously Stratford is a different matter).

I think the Thameslink Greenwich line trains are useful - it's amazing how many people use it between the Greenwich line and stations in the core - but they are badly implemented and need rethinking, especially if the Greenwich/Woolwich line is lumbered with the post-Covid reduced Southeastern timetable for the foreseeable.

The most aggravating aspect of this is the complete separation between Thameslink and Southeastern - when there's engineering works in/near the core or even further north Thameslink will cut its service through Greenwich and Woolwich to once an hour from London Bridge platform 2, which is laughable for an urban metro service.

I got caught by something else last night after visiting Chatham - I rushed to get the 2210 West Hampstead service, thinking it was my last train home - only to find it was fast from Dartford to London Bridge, with a 22-minute wait at Dartford to pick up a Greenwich line train.

It does seem like Thameslink's service decisions are arbitrary and designed to suit Thameslink and Thameslink alone, with no co-ordination with what Southeastern does, and it's unfortunate that a key route from SE London to Gravesend and the Medway towns - one that could be better utilised with the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood - is in the hands of managers with no real interest in it.

Your post alone highlights the issues with the Rainham Thameslink service aptly.

Even before the opening of the EL/stupid axing of ChX trains on the Woolwich line, that Thameslink was only something of a novelty to those east of Charlton who would opt for the faster ChX service, I only ever saw it being well used west of Charlton, ie the Greenwich line stations.

And you’re right that Thameslink’s decision suits them and them alone, the service it replaced was a semi fast service via Blackheath and not a stopping service via Greenwich, yet they turned the semi fast into a tediously slow service, when in the age of EL at Abbey, a semi fast from Medway/Gravesend would be very handy.

The other reason why SE were happy to bin off the Gillingham service to Thameslink as at the time (mid 2010s) it was speculated that the Dartford/Gravesend, Sevenoaks & Hayes metro services would be handed over to TfL, and that SE didn’t want the ChX-Woolwich-Medway service, this highlights another hasty decision is that the Blackheath-Woolwich route is 2tph and still 2tph today therefore not the sort of service LO would want to run.

 

[Mgameing123]

I agree with this it really should be more of a 'metro' operation rather than a mainline one as I was saying earlier.

No it should find a balance between the 2. The 2 tph services do have their right to stay (Somehow the Met can manage with 2 tph to Chesham). But obviously these services should be a lower priority and if ever capacity becomes a problem we should cut these services from the core.

 

[Class15]

But only takes about 15 minutes longer to St Pancras than a non-stop train to Kings Cross. Once the time taken to change trains at Kings Cross is added in, going on Thameslink is quicker for many journeys, especially going out the other side of the core.


No because the Cambridge economy is booming. For Cambridge the 1990s were a different world.



In the peaks at least some of those services are 12 cars south of Cambridge, to accommodate the Letchworth and Royston passengers. The peak trains that are only 8 cars, and calling at Letchworth and Royston, are very crowded, and best avoided.




In the lead up to 2018 Rainham was a place to go to tick the 24tph box. It is high risk for low reward and I agree it should be junked. Most of the places it serves have better options using Javelin and/or Elizabeth line. I'd go for no Thameslink trains on the South Eastern, apart from the Catford loop to Sevenoaks/Orpington.

I use this service regularly from Greenwich to North London - it is invaluable and there would be significant objection if it was withdrawn.

 

[miklcct]

The pairs work, on the south side anyway.

On the north, they are just the same pairs which are smartly aligned into 4tphs. The north is simpler - in theory you could have
4tph St Albans (slow)
4tph Luton (semi)
4tph Bedford (fast)

then
4tph Cambridge
4tph P'boro (overkill?)

and we're about done. I think Welwyn should be part of a Moorgate Metro - 6tph and 6tph (3tph to Stevenage)

But south side, it's trickier to do 4s.
4 Brighton
4 Three Bridges / Horsham
4 Sutton
4 Orpington/Sevenoaks

and then it gets messy.

I think that's easy (16 tph off-peak)
4 tph Bedford - Brighton
4 tph Luton - Orpington / Sevenoaks
4 tph St Albans - Sutton
4 tph Cambridge / Peterborough - Horsham

Then the peak extras:
Another 2 tph Bedford - East Grinstead
Another 2 tph Bedford - Three Bridges
That's all, total 20 tph, a train every 3 minutes.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I use this service regularly from Greenwich to North London - it is invaluable and there would be significant objection if it was withdrawn.

The objection may come from those west of Charlton, (Westcombe, Maze, Greenwich, Deptford) but Charlton and eastwards, the service isn’t as popular, and wouldn’t care if it was done away with, we lost ChX trains a while back and they were always the more popular service, even the advent of the EL, ChX still had good loadings, the ideal compromise would be terminating the Thameslink at Dartford, calling at Erith & Belvedere in the process, Gillingham trains brought back to SE, semi fast, and 4 Cannon Street rounders per hour (2tph from Bexleyheath, 2tph from Sidcup)

 

[Blindtraveler]

This would be my ideal solution to the problem as well

 

[bramling]

I use this service regularly from Greenwich to North London - it is invaluable and there would be significant objection if it was withdrawn.

It’s all very well saying the service is valuable, however for others of us we now have a service which is so unreliable that many people locally regard it as unusable and frankly unfit for purpose.

If through services can’t perform the bread-and-butter function of taking people to and from London in a way which is dependable, then clearly the whole concept needs changing. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate removing all the through services, as things stand the service from some destinations is too heavily reliant on them.

In the First Capital Connect era I could turn up at my station and it was pretty much a given that the relevant train would turn up, and likely be on time - Mondays to Fridays at least - and it was sufficiently dependable that you didn’t really have to check beforehand. Fast forward a decade and it’s a complete liability making any plans based on using the train service.

 

[Magdalia]

I use this service regularly from Greenwich to North London - it is invaluable and there would be significant objection if it was withdrawn.

The discussion is about how to improve reliability on Thameslink. That involves making the service simpler and more robust, removing the services that have small benefits but add a lot to risks of disruption.

As it happens, the Rainham service is disrupted this morning because of a problem at Strood. This will have knock on impact on the rest of the Thameslink service.

Taking as much of South Eastern as possible out of Thameslink significantly reduces the number of places where disruptive incidents can have an impact on other Thameslink services, and that's why it needs to be done. Yes, a few people will lose through services that they were given in 2018, but most of the Rainham route already has better options with Javelin and Elizabeth Line services.

 

[Class15]

The objection may come from those west of Charlton, (Westcombe, Maze, Greenwich, Deptford) but Charlton and eastwards, the service isn’t as popular, and wouldn’t care if it was done away with, we lost ChX trains a while back and they were always the more popular service, even the advent of the EL, ChX still had good loadings, the ideal compromise would be terminating the Thameslink at Dartford, calling at Erith & Belvedere in the process, Gillingham trains brought back to SE, semi fast, and 4 Cannon Street rounders per hour (2tph from Bexleyheath, 2tph from Sidcup)

This seems fair and would please most people.

It’s all very well saying the service is valuable, however for others of us we now have a service which is so unreliable that many people locally regard it as unusable and frankly unfit for purpose.

If through services can’t perform the bread-and-butter function of taking people to and from London in a way which is dependable, then clearly the whole concept needs changing. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate removing all the through services, as things stand the service from some destinations is too heavily reliant on them.

In the First Capital Connect era I could turn up at my station and it was pretty much a given that the relevant train would turn up, and likely be on time - Mondays to Fridays at least - and it was sufficiently dependable that you didn’t really have to check beforehand. Fast forward a decade and it’s a complete liability making any plans based on using the train service.

The through service has become very useful to many - particularly west of Charlton - I don’t understand why everyone is against it on these forums.

The discussion is about how to improve reliability on Thameslink. That involves making the service simpler and more robust, removing the services that have small benefits but add a lot to risks of disruption.

As it happens, the Rainham service is disrupted this morning because of a problem at Strood. This will have knock on impact on the rest of the Thameslink service.

Taking as much of South Eastern as possible out of Thameslink significantly reduces the number of places where disruptive incidents can have an impact on other Thameslink services, and that's why it needs to be done. Yes, a few people will lose through services that they were given in 2018, but most of the Rainham route already has better options with Javelin and Elizabeth Line services.

West of Charlton - no it doesn’t. You effectively want to get rid of this useful through service to improve reliability. Notice that nobody is suggesting getting rid of any other Thameslink services - for example Peterborough, which is far more liable to disruption that Rainham.

 

[Mgameing123]

This seems fair and would please most people.

The through service has become very useful to many - particularly west of Charlton - I don’t understand why everyone is against it on these forums.

West of Charlton - no it doesn’t. You effectively want to get rid of this useful through service to improve reliability. Notice that nobody is suggesting getting rid of any other Thameslink services - for example Peterborough, which is far more liable to disruption that Rainham.

I think its because of the Southeastern timetable change. There are people who benefit from the new timetable and others who hate it. Anyways I need more context on how service was prior to the controversial timetable change.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The through service has become very useful to many - particularly west of Charlton - I don’t understand why everyone is against it on these forums.

Because it benefits only a small group of customers, the Greenwich line, the rest of the Woolwich line has been lumbered with this service, especially since it replaced a well used and popular semi fast service, yes we know Medway has HS1 but the current Thameslink service is far too slow and calls at too many stations between Medway and London.

West of Charlton - no it doesn’t. You effectively want to get rid of this useful through service to improve reliability. Notice that nobody is suggesting getting rid of any other Thameslink services - for example Peterborough, which is far more liable to disruption that Rainham.

Again in my experience I’ve not seen that Thameslink as being all that useful apart from a small number of passengers that are predominantly west of Charlton, Medway/Gravesend has the HS1 to get them to St. Pancras for further Thameslink destinations and west of Gravesend to Abbey Wood/Woolwich can access the EL to Farringdon.

The Thameslink Rainham is a rather slow duplicate for both.

I think its because of the Southeastern timetable change. There are people who benefit from the new timetable and others who hate it. Anyways I need more context on how service was prior to the controversial timetable change.

I’m guessing you’re referring to the Dec 2022 timetable change? Yes it wa very controversial for a number of reasons.

It was done because the EL had opened and so SE decided to axe Charing Cross trains which were the most used service on the line, far more than the Thameslink service.

The problem being is that by axing ChX trains you’ve completely overloaded the EL since not just the Woolwich line customers but a chunk of the Bexleyheath line too have switched over due to SE insane decision to basically give up on running a decent metro service, the excuse was also Lewisham Junction which because of one meltdown in 2017 it suddenly became a massive problem.

I see you asked the service patterns prior to the change, I’ll give you a brief rundown to services from 2018-2022 and prior to 2018

Prior to 2018:
2tph: Charing Cross to Gillingham via Blackheath & Woolwich semi fast
2tph: Charing Cross to Dartford via Greenwich
4tph: Cannon Street to Slade Green, 2tph returns to CST via Bexleyheath, the other 2tph via Sidcup

2018-2022:
2tph: Luton to Rainham, semi slow
2tph: Charing Cross to Dartford via Blackheath
4tph: Cannon Street rounders

Post 2022:
2tph Luton to Rainham
2tph: Cannon Street to Dartford/Gravesend via Blackheath
2tph: Cannon Street rounder, returns via Bexleyheath

 

[Magdalia]

You effectively want to get rid of this useful through service to improve reliability.

I make no apologies for that. If reliability is going to be improved by simplifying the service, then something has to give. In the context of Thameslink as a whole, loss of through service for a few stations between Charlton and Deptford is a small loss for a big resilience improvement.

Notice that nobody is suggesting getting rid of any other Thameslink services - for example Peterborough, which is far more liable to disruption that Rainham.

I notice a lot of suggestions for taking Peterborough out of Thameslink. For improving reliability, getting rid of Rainham is the biggest win on the south side of the river and Peterborough is the biggest win on the north side.

 

[JonathanH]

Taking as much of South Eastern as possible out of Thameslink significantly reduces the number of places where disruptive incidents can have an impact on other Thameslink services

Alternatively it can be seen as avoiding the concentration of the risk of delays on the residual routes, for example if there is a problem on the route via Forest Hill. While Epsom remains everyone's favourite destination for the diverted service it would be interesting to know whether a change to the Rainham (or indeed Peterborough) service has ever actually been seriously contemplated by those with the power to make those changes. I suspect not.