Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[Failed Unit]

When the last train is cancelled, are passengers offered a taxi home?

This is GTR you are talking about! Of course not.

You have to sort out your own and claim it back.

Not got hit in London yet (as too scared to use the last train from there) but that is the situation in the Hertfordshire stations.

 

[BRX]

In the mornings it's usually OK. But by the evening, they've usually lost the plot because of knock on delays cause by late running trains off th GN side running late back into London. On many evenings I've had to wait for close to an hour before a train is available at Blackfriars that is stopping at Flitwick. That's because the train is either a "Thameslink Express" or a skip-stopper. Remember, we've no alternative way to get home.

Here's last week's evening peak. It doesn't look so absolutely terrible to me. Or is it that this data doesn't pick up skip-stopping?

 

[Failed Unit]

Here's last week's evening peak. It doesn't look so absolutely terrible to me. Or is it that this data doesn't pick up skip-stopping?
View attachment 50974

That is a good question - I have seen services which have skipped shown on this data as not cancelled. But others on the forum says this is corrected later. Just not sure how much later as in following week or longer.

But on the day I have seen 0 cancellations advertised - when I know of multi services that skipped stops (many of them still failing to recover time)

 

[Mikey C]

Things are still pretty shoddy on the Medway route, 1tph, sometimes 1tp2h, and sometimes no Saturday service, I said you can’t change the timetable where GTR is concerned because of the knock on effect onto other TOC’s however the most badly affected routes need to be looked at, Southern are happy but the changes were always going to benefit Southern more than say South Eastern, I think some routes need to be changed and looked into or else we’ll be going round in circles, it’s now August and there are still issues, it’s astounding.

Yes it's really annoying how the SE timetable has been butchered for these Thameslink trains that were never part of the original plan, only for GTR to not run them

 

[Aictos]

Here's last week's evening peak. It doesn't look so absolutely terrible to me. Or is it that this data doesn't pick up skip-stopping?
View attachment 50974

Where is that data from? Is it a public available website?

 

[BRX]

Where is that data from? Is it a public available website?

http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/

 

[Aictos]

http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/

Thanks for that, I've never seen this site before.

 

[jon0844]

Today has seen a one under earlier today (north of Ely - a King's Lynn train towards London) and now a speed restriction northbound through Knebworth (20mph until close of play) on the fast line.

 

[bramling]

I love it. As a passenger I have only used it on a couple of occasions but the new routes are really advantageous.

I love this view.

In essence - "Isn't it wonderful that I can take a through train to Gatwick when I go on holiday a couple of occasions a year, even if it means the service is perennially up the wall for people who just want to get to London (*) every day."

(* or simple local journeys like Stevenage to Biggleswade).

 

[bramling]

The other thing I'd say is that reading this thread can perhaps give a somewhat distorted impression of how bad things are. It seems that most of the problems are confined to the ex GN routes. I don't use those; the routes I mainly use are sutton loop through the core, and sevenoaks services. Over the past couple of weeks I've not had any cancelled or significantly late trains. I'd almost say it's been better than it was before the timetable change, on the sutton loop (which has long been a victim of through-running issues). Although it has to be acknowleged that the current timetable has a few services taken out of it.

I'm currently on a Rainham train, which reading this thread I'd got the impression was a nearly completely disfunctional service. So far so good though.

I don't doubt that some people especially to the north of London are genuinely having a nightmare with the new timetable. But it does seem that on *most* of the network things have settled down somewhat now, and we are no longer in a situation where there's widespread chaos everywhere.

I think it's naïve in extreme to think things have settled down.

So far GN has been to hell and back, and revised driver/train diagrams have helped a bit, but underlying performance remains very poor. Do not forget that things are still very much in the introductory stage - we have 2tph to Peterborough and 1tph to Cambridge, out of a proposed 8tph in total, each way, from and to Great Northern - and in some hours two out of the three are cancelled. If they can't even get 1-3tph to work smoothly, how can anyone think 8tph has got any chance at all? Not to mention through the 24tph intensive core.

The Midland side is pretty fragile too. Lots of crossing movements at places like West Hampstead, Radlett, Harpenden and Leagrave planned on a thread through flat single-lead junctions. And virtually no resilience to turn back late-running services as reversing facilities like St Albans and Luton are used intensively throughout the day. The saving grace is of course the frequency, so generally people get a train to their destination, even if not the timetabled one they intended. GN is a different ball game - the greater diversity of destinations means there will never be this level of duplication.

There's nothing wrong with the Thameslink concept, but the problem is it's been used as pretty much the sole solution to providing extra capacity across four different networks, plus there seems to be a vague idea of using it as an extra metro route within zone one to relieve the Underground. This is where things have gone wrong IMO.

And before people start banging on about capacity, the Thameslink Programme doesn't even do that particularly well. For a start there are more 8-car class 700s than 12-car ones. There are already diagrams on the Midland side where 8-car 700s run to places like Bedford and Brighton. No attempt has been made to provide 12-car services on routes like Welwyn or St Albans, which seem to be locked into an 8-car railway for the forseeable future. Likewise on the GN route many of the 365 and 387s services are 8 cars when arrangements could quite easily have been made for more 12-car running but for a small amount of platform extension at places like Baldock, Knebworth and Welwyn North - for goodness sake we have 365s in store so there wouldn't need to be any new rolling stock built.

Worse, there have been various half-hearted acknowledgments that things are too fragile, so thanks to the descoping at present users have many of the disbenefits (unreliability, uncomfortable trains), without getting much in the way of extra services or extra length. With the implementation fiasco it remains to be seen when, if ever, these promised uplifts will be delivered. Then we have the changes to the programme mid-way through - the Sutton political drama, and the Rainham flirtation - which again locks in the spectacle of 8-car 700s on routes pretty much 12-car capable.

A retrenchment back from Peterborough and Cambridge wouldn't go amiss releasing some 12-car 700s for use elsewhere on the Thameslink network, backfilled by stored 365s. Any 8-car 700s surplus by all this can surely be gainfully used on metro work for which they are suitable - if nothing else then a few 8-car SDO workings on the Hertford Loop to King's Cross or even from/to the core definitely wouldn't go amiss.

 

[BRX]

And before people start banging on about capacity, the Thameslink Programme doesn't even do that particularly well.

Thameslink programme blurb claims that the total standard class capacity (including standing) on the Bedford route into London will be more than doubled, and seated capacity increased by 15%. Similarly they claim 75% capacity increase on the Brighton mainline. To my mind these figures is pretty significant, if true.

Obviously that will not be achieved until the full timetable is in place. But do you consider these claims about capacity to be false? And if not, do you think the same capacity increase could be provided without additional through-services?

 

[ComUtoR]

I love this view.

In essence - "Isn't it wonderful that I can take a through train to Gatwick when I go on holiday a couple of occasions a year, even if it means the service is perennially up the wall for people who just want to get to London (*) every day."

The railway is not there for a small section of people who commute each day. The railway connects the country together and people use if for many reasons. It is the selfish nature of some that they don't see it as something there for everyone to use. It also has nothing to do with holidays or Gatwick for me. I live too close to the M25 for me to consider anything other than a car for that trip.

It has also connected me work wise. Instead of a very broken journey with various changes it has given me an option of a single service home. That flexibility of the railway to provide both a work and leisure link is what makes it great.

The opportunity that the new link between North and South London is something that can be very advantageous. It gives people an option that wasn't there before. For me certainly the Railway is more about leisure but I am not so insular not to understand the issues it is currently going through.

 

[BRX]

I have a friend who lives in Luton and works in Greenwich. He now has a direct train where none existed before.

 

[CMS]

Delete

 

[Mikey C]

I have a friend who lives in Luton and works in Greenwich. He now has a direct train where none existed before.

Which at best operates half hourly, and sometimes hourly. A lot of the time your friend will still be changing at London Bridge anyway

Besides the whole point of the rebuilding of the tracks outside London Bridge was to increase capacity by reducing complexity, so that for example the Greenwich line lost all its historical Charing Cross services. I bet far more people on that line would like direct Charing Cross services rather than Luton ones.

 

[philjo]

As a GN user, most of our journeys are somewhat slower than before the timetable changed.
We used to have regular calls on the Cambridge/Kings Lynn trains that took 28 minutes to Kings Cross & in the evenings Letchworth was first stop every half hour on the northbound services. Most of these services no longer call. The evening peak fasts that started terminated at Royston were fast to Stevenage, then Letchworth & stations to Royston. These now call at Welwyn North, Knebworth, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock where most terminate. it also doesn't help that as these trains do not call at Stevenage it means very long waits if connecting to/from LNER Leeds/York services. in the old timetable there were 6 trains from 0700-0802 from Letchworth to Stevenage. currently we have 0700, 0721 and 0800, all of which regularly don't run.
Our Kings Cross stoppers used to take 49 minutes. they are now scheduled to take 1 hour. So although we do gain an extra stopper per hour the journeys take longer (when it runs)
Off-peak, the loss of the Hertford services from Letchworth don't help either as they used to provide a reliable service to Stevenage for connections when there were other problems further down the line.

 

[Hadders]

Thameslink programme blurb claims that the total standard class capacity (including standing) on the Bedford route into London will be more than doubled, and seated capacity increased by 15%. Similarly they claim 75% capacity increase on the Brighton mainline. To my mind these figures is pretty significant, if true.

Obviously that will not be achieved until the full timetable is in place. But do you consider these claims about capacity to be false? And if not, do you think the same capacity increase could be provided without additional through-services?

75% capacity increase will include standing.

As a GN user, most of our journeys are somewhat slower than before the timetable changed.
We used to have regular calls on the Cambridge/Kings Lynn trains that took 28 minutes to Kings Cross & in the evenings Letchworth was first stop every half hour on the northbound services. Most of these services no longer call. The evening peak fasts that started terminated at Royston were fast to Stevenage, then Letchworth & stations to Royston. These now call at Welwyn North, Knebworth, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock where most terminate. it also doesn't help that as these trains do not call at Stevenage it means very long waits if connecting to/from LNER Leeds/York services. in the old timetable there were 6 trains from 0700-0802 from Letchworth to Stevenage. currently we have 0700, 0721 and 0800, all of which regularly don't run.
Our Kings Cross stoppers used to take 49 minutes. they are now scheduled to take 1 hour. So although we do gain an extra stopper per hour the journeys take longer (when it runs)
Off-peak, the loss of the Hertford services from Letchworth don't help either as they used to provide a reliable service to Stevenage for connections when there were other problems further down the line.

Spot on. So much spent for so little gain.

 

[The Box Photter]

As a regular user, I will say there has been some very small improvement but the situation is still dire. Among the multitude of problems, the one thing I struggle with is that service recovery is ridiculously poor. There seems to be this mentality that 'we have got to get the train to its final destination as quickly as possible' and that is prolonging the service disruption because it means short-term changes, inconsistent customer information, customers being dumped at inconvenient stations and trains being either crushed or empty. If this is the mechanism which is used with the current, emergency timetable then there really will be a meltdown with the full timetable.

Although Thameslink is trying to be all things to all people, I think its closest partner is the RER B/D in Paris. Granted there is a massive crime issue on these routes, the routes are slightly more self-contained and there are less 'regional' sections, but the core role and types of service frequency are quite similar. The RER B/D might be a nightmare for regular commuters for various reasons, but the service recovery after a disruption is excellent, far better than Thameslink. I see this as because:
- There are spare platforms and turnaround facilities that mean you can 'split the core'. TL doesn't have this luxury but it could at least try - Kentish Town, Finsbury Park, London Bridge do have a very small bit of slack even if it requires some out of service running.
- They get passengers moving by getting everyone to the stations with the highest passenger numbers. I agree with this, even if some places on GN/BML have only 2tph, they have nowhere near the passenger numbers. It's better handling the customer flow by telling them to get to their nearest hub, then give them options of getting to their final destinations then trying to be all things to all people. Yes, it would probably mean a vocal Twitter backlash from the locals of central Bedfordshire, or mid-Sussex but the truth is St Albans, Luton, Bedford has the numbers so should have the priority. On GN that means Stevenage, Hitchin, Cambridge - if that means killing Hertford Loop for 2 hours, do it, the compensation bill will be less. Skip-stopping is not ideal, ever, but if they have to do it, they need to consider this as well as operational convenience.
- Customer information: TL is actually not bad at sorting out ticket acceptance, offering alternative routes on Twitter etc but they have a big problem at ensuring the same info on their app, the NR app and social media gets to their colleagues on the ground. In addition, some of their CIS's do their own thing. However they do it, they need a system which allows for X team to input info into a live feed for all staff to see on their phones, station positions, control rooms etc in addition to the local operational tools which give info about the next given trains - no one seem to have the 'big picture'. Every station needs to have an authorised, efficient alternative route to and from London so that each time there is a major disruption, staff can simply look it up and send customers that way, be that face-to-face or via Twitter. At SNCF, when things go majorly wrong, they get the red vests out at all of the main Paris hubs who are all relatively well informed. At TL, we seem to get agency staff who don't know anything and act as bouncers for queues. One feature I like is that regular RER B/D users have a blog which posts detailed explanations of projects and learnings from previous disruptions on their lines. It builds confidence that something is being done, unlike TL who have an awful public reputation. The blogs get many questions and comments which are answered in a more objective, non-customer-service way than on Twitter.

Granted, none of the above can overcome the huge operational hurdles and in any case, operations comes first, they have been discussed many a time on this thread though. I just wanted to highlight some ideas at how when things go wrong, there must be a more positive, efficient solution than at present.

How, exactly do you propose I get to Luton or Bedford in the morning in order to catch a train that will get me to my desk by 0900? Have you seen the M1 at 0630 or the traffic trying to get into Bedford at the same time? And then where do you suggest I park, or find the additional money GTR and the parking mafia would like to gouge me for parking in their poorly-lit crime-fest of a car park?

 

[Hadders]

Here's last week's evening peak. It doesn't look so absolutely terrible to me. Or is it that this data doesn't pick up skip-stopping?
View attachment 50974

Here's the same data between St Pancras and Stevenage.



Not exactly a ringing endorsement of services through the core.

 

[The Box Photter]

The railway is not there for a small section of people who commute each day. The railway connects the country together and people use if for many reasons. It is the selfish nature of some that they don't see it as something there for everyone to use. It also has nothing to do with holidays or Gatwick for me. I live too close to the M25 for me to consider anything other than a car for that trip.

It has also connected me work wise. Instead of a very broken journey with various changes it has given me an option of a single service home. That flexibility of the railway to provide both a work and leisure link is what makes it great.

The opportunity that the new link between North and South London is something that can be very advantageous. It gives people an option that wasn't there before. For me certainly the Railway is more about leisure but I am not so insular not to understand the issues it is currently going through.

Actually, if it wan't for the thousands of commuters each day, there would be a lot fewer railway lines in existence and a lot fewer trains. The railway is EXACTLY designed to move large numbers of people all at once. I'm really pleased for the chap who has a friend who lives in Luton and works in Greenwich. I'm also pleased that he has the time and inclination to sit on a Class 700 for such a long time, calling at every station between Luton & Greenwich. It would probably have been quicker for him to get an EMT fast train from Luton to St Pancras, then Northern Line to London Bridge, then a Southeastern Train to Greenwich (and more comfortable).

But passengers wanting to travel from Luton to Greenwich without changing trains must number in the tens, whilst passengers wanting a quick reliable service from Luton into London must number in the tens of thousands. For which passengers exactly is Railplan 2020 a benefit? Certainly not me, or most of the ex-GN sufferers.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Actually, if it wan't for the thousands of commuters each day, there would be a lot fewer railway lines in existence and a lot fewer trains. The railway is EXACTLY designed to move large numbers of people all at once. I'm really pleased for the chap who has a friend who lives in Luton and works in Greenwich. I'm also pleased that he has the time and inclination to sit on a Class 700 for such a long time, calling at every station between Luton & Greenwich. It would probably have been quicker for him to get an EMT fast train from Luton to St Pancras, then Northern Line to London Bridge, then a Southeastern Train to Greenwich (and more comfortable).

But passengers wanting to travel from Luton to Greenwich without changing trains must number in the tens, whilst passengers wanting a quick reliable service from Luton into London must number in the tens of thousands. For which passengers exactly is Railplan 2020 a benefit? Certainly not me, or most of the ex-GN sufferers.

A great and reasonable comment . Reminds me of the heartfelt winge from a Camden Road to Feltham commuter on the NLL , who complained bitterly when the actual financial dog of Anglia - Crosslink was binned - that his oh so comfortable commute , complete with air con 170 + coffee had the subsidy removed and was cancelled. Meanwhile the real commuters on the line were packed into class 313's ,with frankly not a great service (but much better now) ....deal with the most , not the micros ....

 

[CMS]

Deleted

 

[The Box Photter]

Sorry, I don't follow you. My point was that to recover the service, focusing on moving the masses from the most popular stations is the more important than skip-stopping or providing a stop at a minor location.

By no means do I suggest removing stops from minor stations (such as Flitwick and Harlington) in the regular TL timetable, just to rethink service recovery.

Oh, my misunderstanding. The thing is that usually a skip-stopping service catches up with a slower service in front and doesn't regain much time anyway and being dumped at Luton, not knowing when the next service that calls at Flitwick or Harlington will turn up isn't really delivering much of a service anyway. If we wanted to get to "nearly" our intended destination, we'd book a flight on Easyjet.

 

[bramling]

Sorry, I don't follow you. My point was that to recover the service, focusing on moving the masses from the most popular stations is the more important than skip-stopping or providing a stop at a minor location.

By no means do I suggest removing stops from minor stations (such as Flitwick and Harlington) in the regular TL timetable, just to rethink service recovery.

Part of the difficult is that very few of the stations north of the river can be described as “minor”. On the GN side only Ashwell, Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton could be described as quiet - and these still have commuter traffic. On the Midland side perhaps only Harlington is quiet, though I bet this is still busy in the peaks thanks to traffic off the M1. Missing out stops is rarely going to happen without inconveniencing quite a few people. Plus with a half-hourly service there is the risk of creating some quite long gaps.

Both routes have a big resilience problem north of the river. The Midland side has few opportunities to turn trains short of their booked destination, the GN side is slightly better in this respect with facilities like Letchworth or St Neots. But if the train is booked a crew relief at the terminus then the train pretty much has to run through. Turnaround time isn’t wonderful either - the terminal arrangements at St Albans, Luton and Bedford are woeful for the number of services now using them - indeed the whole track layout at Bedford is dire, dating from a time a considerably lesser service than today, yet little has been done to the layout to prepare for Thameslink. Turnaround time at Peterborough and Cambridge could also be better - but all this is only useful if there is slack in the driver diagrams.

Unfortunately this is all why it’s best not to introduce a delay in the first place, sadly the opposite of what Thameslink does.

 

[bramling]

Thameslink programme blurb claims that the total standard class capacity (including standing) on the Bedford route into London will be more than doubled, and seated capacity increased by 15%. Similarly they claim 75% capacity increase on the Brighton mainline. To my mind these figures is pretty significant, if true.

Obviously that will not be achieved until the full timetable is in place. But do you consider these claims about capacity to be false? And if not, do you think the same capacity increase could be provided without additional through-services?

I didn’t say Thameslink Programme doesn’t deliver extra capacity, but I did imply that I don’t think it’s the best way of providing extra capacity, nor does it make full use of the infrastructure with its short 8-car trains.

I don’t have a problem with *additional* through services. What I do have a problem with is replacing established reliable services with unreliable through services - especially justified on the grounds of capacity when my eyes see lots of 8-car 700s as well as 365s and 387s running around including in the high peak.

In my view Thameslink should have been one part of a number of measures to increase capacity. On the GN side a lot could have been done simply with extra units and a few platform extensions.

I don’t get why some people on here are completely intransigent to the idea of some extra Thameslink services on top of non-Thameslink ones. This provides extra capacity and the precious exciting new destinations for those who want them, but also maintaining some level of reliability. Reduce the infamous 24tph by a little and away goes the so-called need for some of the less popular elements of the 700 interior too.

 

[BRX]

I didn’t say Thameslink Programme doesn’t deliver extra capacity, but I did imply that I don’t think it’s the best way of providing extra capacity, nor does it make full use of the infrastructure with its short 8-car trains.

I don’t have a problem with *additional* through services. What I do have a problem with is replacing established reliable services with unreliable through services - especially justified on the grounds of capacity when my eyes see lots of 8-car 700s as well as 365s and 387s running around including in the high peak.

In my view Thameslink should have been one part of a number of measures to increase capacity. On the GN side a lot could have been done simply with extra units and a few platform extensions.

I don’t get why some people on here are completely intransigent to the idea of some extra Thameslink services on top of non-Thameslink ones. This provides extra capacity and the precious exciting new destinations for those who want them, but also maintaining some level of reliability. Reduce the infamous 24tph by a little and away goes the so-called need for some of the less popular elements of the 700 interior too.

Outside of the GN bit (which I really don't know much about at all) I'm not clear, specifically, what your proposal is, though. To increase capacity you need a more intensive service, which means more trains on top of the pre-existing 'reliable' service, and they either have to turn around somewhere or run through the core. So where do they turn around? As I understand it, it's simply not possible - there isn't spare platform space on either the north of south side of the core.

 

[BRX]

Here's the same data between St Pancras and Stevenage.

View attachment 51007

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of services through the core.

We don't know how much of that can be attributed to the fact that the services run through the core, rather than problems specific to the GN route, plus the driver shortage issue.

My local line is the Sutton Loop, on which (as they have done for a long time) all services run through the core. My observation over the past couple weeks is that things have been relatively stable and reliable. The numbers below seem to confirm that (and look pretty similar to what I'd have expected prior to the timetable change). If current problems were mainly related to the number/complexity of services running through the core, then surely we'd be seeing similar effects here.

 

[Hadders]

I didn’t say Thameslink Programme doesn’t deliver extra capacity, but I did imply that I don’t think it’s the best way of providing extra capacity, nor does it make full use of the infrastructure with its short 8-car trains.

I don’t have a problem with *additional* through services. What I do have a problem with is replacing established reliable services with unreliable through services - especially justified on the grounds of capacity when my eyes see lots of 8-car 700s as well as 365s and 387s running around including in the high peak.

In my view Thameslink should have been one part of a number of measures to increase capacity. On the GN side a lot could have been done simply with extra units and a few platform extensions.

I don’t get why some people on here are completely intransigent to the idea of some extra Thameslink services on top of non-Thameslink ones. This provides extra capacity and the precious exciting new destinations for those who want them, but also maintaining some level of reliability. Reduce the infamous 24tph by a little and away goes the so-called need for some of the less popular elements of the 700 interior too.

This is spot on. I simply cannot see how they will ever get 24 tph through the core in the peaks. Go to St Pancras northbound platform around 17:30 and you'll understand what I mean. It's taking well over a minute to dispatch trains with the constant 'stand behind the yellow line' announcements before they will start dispatch.

 

[bramling]

This is spot on. I simply cannot see how they will ever get 24 tph through the core in the peaks. Go to St Pancras northbound platform around 17:30 and you'll understand what I mean. It's taking well over a minute to dispatch trains with the constant 'stand behind the yellow line' announcements before they will start dispatch.

I don’t think the 24tph will be achieved. Whilst I don’t doubt it’s possible from an engineering point of view, I don’t think the wider network will conspire to make it work.

Meanwhile GN seems screwed again tonight, all seems to be due to the ESR at Woolmer Green. Still, at least I’m on a comfortable (and almost empty) 365 so it could be worse.

 

[CMS]

Deleted