Why is Thameslink so terrible?

[JonathanH]

Folding bike.

Even that must depend on how much time it takes to unfold and refold it. The distance is about the length when an unencumbered run should be quickest - eg 3 minutes at 6.5mph.

 

[Fincra5]

A different poster said about them head codes. And the Thameslink by the way go over at harpenden quite often , so a bit further than radlett.

Depends on the routing

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s a pity the MML crossovers are so much slower (40mph) than linespeed as that must eat into max theoretical line capacity.

As the Guv’nor says, the FYY at Radlett and Harp have certainly helped matters (Although some drivers still don’t use the FYYs to full effect - I regularly have drivers leaving St Albans on the DF and not getting above 80mph as they know they are going over at Harp; then braking very early for the junction, that costs at least a minute.)

I have personally investigated lifting Radlett to 60 or 70mph, and it’s not at all easy. Where it is it fits perfectly on a stretch of straight track in a complete signal section away from under bridges and clear of the neutral section for Borehamwood feeder. To go to a higher speed needs to breach one or more of those things.

I use Thameslink trains often. In fact upto August , six or seven days a week.

Good. Since numbers picked up in September, you may have seen the difference.

I said that make them late. I didn't say TO make them late.

Either way, when running to timetable, they do not make them late, as the example I posted above shows. TL train on time (actually 1 late at St Albans), 2 x EMRs behind slowed to follow it after the St Albans stop, both EMRs 3 minutes early at Luton.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Your post #62 is quite clearly implying that EMR trains were being delayed unnecessarily, see here: "So they purposefully timetable slow running Thameslink on the fasts that make inter city trains late sometimes... Odd". Even though @Bald Rick explained what is really happening, your next post #66 persists claiming that here is some deliberate action to make TL trains delay EMR services. Anyone who has travelled a few times on the TL fasts know that the waits for EMR trains to get into TL territory do cause delays to TL services, - which in turn can cause further delays to GN line TL trains waiting in the Canal Tunnel. A frequent problem is late TL trains being held at Harpenden waiting for access to the fasts to West Hampstead. The impact then is the TL train stopping at St Albans and sometimes West Hampstead causing the following EMR train to hit yellow lights down to the Belsize Tunnel, - no doubt you would see that as TL timetabled just to slow the EMR services down. If on the other hand the signaller decides to route the TL trains on the slows, stopping at St Albans, it either gets tangled up with a Sutton loop service at Radlett before it can cross over to the fasts, also messing up the sequence entering the core, or the metro service gets messed up a lot south of the river.

There is a reason why the Thameslink services are all running under 9XXX codes, - because the service is very tightly timed with short dwell trains that are required to clear the (much higher than EMR) volume of passengers travelling. Giving them a higher priority than ordinary express code 1XXX services allows the more critical service to take precedence.

Class 9's don't get priority over Class 1's, that's not how it works. Thameslink services are ran as Class 9's to show the signallers that they are running through the core, and more pertinently because we are running out of headcodes and South of the River there are far too many other services running as Class 1's or 2's meaning there would no spare headcodes for Thameslink services if they ran as Class 2's or 2's.

 

[baz962]

As the Guv’nor says, the FYY at Radlett and Harp have certainly helped matters (Although some drivers still don’t use the FYYs to full effect - I regularly have drivers leaving St Albans on the DF and not getting above 80mph as they know they are going over at Harp; then braking very early for the junction, that costs at least a minute.)

I have personally investigated lifting Radlett to 60 or 70mph, and it’s not at all easy. Where it is it fits perfectly on a stretch of straight track in a complete signal section away from under bridges and clear of the neutral section for Borehamwood feeder. To go to a higher speed needs to breach one or more of those things.



Good. Since numbers picked up in September, you may have seen the difference.



Either way, when running to timetable, they do not make them late, as the example I posted above shows. TL train on time (actually 1 late at St Albans), 2 x EMRs behind slowed to follow it after the St Albans stop, both EMRs 3 minutes early at Luton.

Yes when running to timetable they shouldn't make them late. I still use Thameslink regularly , just use EMR more. Still quite empty . But the point is valid. My point is that inter city service should be used to full effect. You have 125 running. Like I said I don't apportion blame . Ideally though , there should be less Thameslink and the intercity should have quicker journey times . Thameslink trains also use the lines and therefore the EMR have to have slower journey times. We can't necessarily do it and we don't all get what we want. But that's how it should be.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

2 observations really.

The now long retired PW and Operations planners who sorted out the main line junction strategy when West Hampstead PSB came into being in the 20thC did a very fine job in positioning the ironwork , and for a much lower traffic volume in those days and the point of further upgrades is very well made as it can not be much bettered. (remember the key junctions are Radlett / "West Hampstead" and Harpenden - but also further north at Leagrave and Bedford South. I hope they enjoyed / did enjoy their rest period.

The acceleration of the 700's on the patch is quite astounding - especially a 12 car off St Albans on the DF , where the tail end is whipping past as an impressive speed. Ditto - when a "delayed" TLK is hoping to access the DF at Carlton Road - they pick up their skirts and go for it. A 319 could never have achieved that performance.

 

[43066]

The regulating skills of West Hampstead PSB are , in my opinion, very good - and often implemented.

I’d generally agree, especially as it’s only one panel covering from just north of the St. Pancras throat to Luton. Three Bridges ROC seems to balls up more often with half a dozen signals and four platforms…

I regularly have drivers leaving St Albans on the DF and not getting above 80mph as they know they are going over at Harp; then braking very early for the junction, that costs at least a minute.

No doubt driving policy etc. and a fear of TPWS overspeed grids which one would assume are armed when the route is set given the linespeed v. crossover speed.

(And for that matter what are the grids at Kettering south set at, where the FY (three aspect) denotes crossing a 30mph crossover from 110mph linespeed? Asking for a friend…)

I have personally investigated lifting Radlett to 60 or 70mph, and it’s not at all easy. Where it is it fits perfectly on a stretch of straight track in a complete signal section away from under bridges and clear of the neutral section for Borehamwood feeder. To go to a higher speed needs to breach one or more of those things.

Makes sense, thanks. I suppose it’s the usual story of squeezing modern infrastructure into a Victorian footprint which is difficult to change much without very significant cost.

 

[Bald Rick]

In which case we agree, except for the less Thameslink bit - that’s already happened. (and notably, no fewer EMRs on the main line). Let’s not forget that the average Thameslink train on the fast lines south of Luton has comfortably more revenue on board than the average EMR train on the same tracks.

Although there’s not much 125mph south of Luton - just over 6 miles to be precise and the trains can only make use of 4 of it.

 

[43066]

Thameslink services are ran as Class 9's to show the signallers that they are running through the core, and more pertinently because we are running out of headcodes and South of the River there are far too many other services running as Class 1's or 2's meaning there would no spare headcodes for Thameslink services if they ran as Class 2's or 2's.

My understanding is that the same analysis applies to London Overground services. Easier for signallers to identify them in a sea of class 1s and 2s.

 

[Bald Rick]

A 319 could never have achieved that performance.

I’m sure, like me, you were on 319s back in the day (a wet autumn one) that crossed to the fast at Carlton Road and didn’t get above 50mph until entering Elstree tunnel.

And for that matter what are the grids at Kettering south set at, where the FY (three aspect) denotes crossing a 30mph crossover from 110mph linespeed? Asking for a friend…)

you‘ll have to tell your friend that I don’t know, and even if I did I couldn’t possibly tell!

My understanding is that the same analysis applies to London Overground services. Easier for signallers to identify them in a sea of class 1s and 2s.

not necessarily at Norwood and New Cross Gate!

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I’m sure, like me, you were on 319s back in the day (a wet autumn one) that crossed to the fast at Carlton Road and didn’t get above 50mph until entering Elstree tunnel.



you‘ll have to tell your friend that I don’t know, and even if I did I couldn’t possibly tell!



not necessarily at Norwood and New Cross Gate!

Yes, far more Class 9's than 1's and 2's at New Cross Gate.

 

[Bald Rick]

No doubt driving policy etc. and a fear of TPWS overspeed grids which one would assume are armed when the route is set given the linespeed v. crossover speed.

possibly, but I don’t get why when the Grids are two signals away!

 

[baz962]

In which case we agree, except for the less Thameslink bit - that’s already happened. (and notably, no fewer EMRs on the main line). Let’s not forget that the average Thameslink train on the fast lines south of Luton has comfortably more revenue on board than the average EMR train on the same tracks.

Although there’s not much 125mph south of Luton - just over 6 miles to be precise and the trains can only make use of 4 of it.

Well maybe , but I'm not focussing on the revenue. I'm looking at it from a customer view and better times and connections . This sub two hours to Sheffield, would be great.

I’d generally agree, especially as it’s only one panel covering from just north of the St. Pancras throat to Luton. Three Bridges ROC seems to balls up more often with half a dozen signals and four platforms…



No doubt driving policy etc. and a fear of TPWS overspeed grids which one would assume are armed when the route is set given the linespeed v. crossover speed.

(And for that matter what are the grids at Kettering south set at, where the FY (three aspect) denotes crossing a 30mph crossover from 110mph linespeed? Asking for a friend…)



Makes sense, thanks. I suppose it’s the usual story of squeezing modern infrastructure into a Victorian footprint which is difficult to change much without very significant cost.

From what I have heard , you don't drive fast enough to blow any tpws

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In which case we agree, except for the less Thameslink bit - that’s already happened. (and notably, no fewer EMRs on the main line). Let’s not forget that the average Thameslink train on the fast lines south of Luton has comfortably more revenue on board than the average EMR train on the same tracks.

Although there’s not much 125mph south of Luton - just over 6 miles to be precise and the trains can only make use of 4 of it.

Even pre-Covid , there was a lot of unused capacity on "fast" Leicester trains , and even more now. As for the Corby service - yes I know middle distance commuting has taken a huge knock which may never quite get back to the pre March planning. So journey time saving may be a bit less of an issue going forward.

Travel patterns - general observations in the core at what used to called the peaks , show better loadings on the slower all stations trains (not an issue for the main lines of course) , and a gratifying increase in passengers on the GN services , especially the Cambridge trains.

 

[43066]

I’m sure, like me, you were on 319s back in the day (a wet autumn one) that crossed to the fast at Carlton Road and didn’t get above 50mph until entering Elstree tunnel.

My most memorable 319 experience was, when out with my DI, almost melting the wheels off a four car (vice eight), trying to get it from Bat and Ball to Sevenoaks (on a dark wet autumn night surprise surprise). We couldn’t get much above walking pace because of the wheels spinning up, ended up about 20 late. We’d decided to report it as a defect but, after stabling it, could feel so much heat baking up from the motor coach that we decided it was better just not to say anything… genuinely astonishing something didn’t catch fire.

Absolutely atrocious units in the wet, sluggish in the dry, horrible cabs, horrible saloon interiors. Lovely brakes though!

As a (very sad) claim to fame, I’ve driven both of the 319 units that were the first trains to carry passengers into the channel tunnel. Admittedly they were faded, graffitied and smelt strongly of urine by that time, but still.

From what I have heard , you don't drive fast enough to blow any tpws

Nope. Driving miss daisy me

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I ran most of the way. Back way past the Somers Town Cafe and Francis Crick. Doors open with Avanti to on TL train in a shade over 5 mins. And I’m not a runner!

Indeed since the route past Crick centre opened its makes STP-LL an excellent station for travel to the Northern destinations. I'm mightily impressed that you did it in 5mins you will need to add on a couple of mins for HS2 Euston though!!

Although there’s not much 125mph south of Luton - just over 6 miles to be precise and the trains can only make use of 4 of it.

Not much point in messing around with the wires to the South of Luton then?

Anyhow back to the thread subject im generally very content with my Thameslink service and London Bridge to St Pancras LL works extremely well whether the trains are in ATO or not. Fundamentally imv driver self despatch in the core is key enabler for reliable running. Even when the platform is full and standing drivers don't lose time. South of L.Bdge watch the time slip away at East Croydon and Purley particularly on the Down Slow as station staff are never up waiting with the driver and then each of the despatchers can't see each other easily at ECR when platforms are full meaning station dwell times are extended. If the drivers can manage self despatch at far more difficult stations of L.Bdge/Farringdon/St.Pancras they should be allowed to do so throughout all stations below E.Croydon.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Indeed since the route past Crick centre opened its makes STP-LL an excellent station for travel to the Northern destinations. I'm mightily impressed that you did it in 5mins you will need to add on a couple of mins for HS2 Euston though!!

Not much point in messing around with the wires to the South of Luton then?

Anyhow back to the thread subject im generally very content with my Thameslink service and London Bridge to St Pancras LL works extremely well whether the trains are in ATO or not. Fundamentally imv driver self despatch in the core is key enabler for reliable running. Even when the platform is full and standing drivers don't lose time. South of L.Bdge watch the time slip away at East Croydon and Purley particularly on the Down Slow as station staff are never up waiting with the driver and then each of the despatchers can't see each other easily at ECR when platforms are full meaning station dwell times are extended. If the drivers can manage self despatch at far more difficult stations of L.Bdge/Farringdon/St.Pancras they should be allowed to do so throughout all stations below E.Croydon.

I'd say East Croydon is a far more difficult station to dispatch at than any of the others mentioned.

 

[43066]

Not much point in messing around with the wires to the South of Luton then?

“Messing with the wires” will allow 360s to run at 110mph for most of that distance. 810s will be able to do 110 for most of it, 125 for a little of it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'd say East Croydon is a far more difficult station to dispatch at than any of the others mentioned.

London Bridge and Farringdon are double reverse curves and they have driver self despatch because the driver has a a far better view of the doors from the onboard screens than the platform despatchers have.

Anyhow given the push back we have from ASLEF and RMT over onboard roles currently nothing is going change anytime soon South of Norwood Jcn (self despatch) but I maintain Class 700's on self despatch are the route to minimising dwell times below E.Croydon.

“Messing with the wires” will allow 360s to run at 110mph for most of that distance. 810s will be able to do 110 for most of it, 125 for a little of it.

I don't recollect WCML wires being "messed with" when IC upped linespeed to 110mph in 80's only for a 125mph.

 

[43066]

I don't recollect WCML wires being "messed with" when IC upped linespeed to 110mph in 80's only for a 125mph.

The MML wires are currently 100mph max, hence the reason for the “messing”. Presumably because it was only electrified as far as Bedford, only 100mph EMUs were anticipated at the time, and 110mph desiros and 125mph 810s are a different kettle of fish.

The WCML/ECML were evidently electrified to a higher standard than the MML, and/or previously upgraded as new traction became available.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well maybe , but I'm not focussing on the revenue. I'm looking at it from a customer view and better times and connections . This sub two hours to Sheffield, would be great.

A typical 1hr 59m fast Sheffield train already has 3 and 1/2 minutes pathing north of Bedford. Is there actually a path to arrive earlier?

 

[Bald Rick]

Well maybe , but I'm not focussing on the revenue. I'm looking at it from a customer view and better times and connections . This sub two hours to Sheffield, would be great.

There’s many more passengers south of Bedford on fast line Thameslink trains than on EMR trains. Removing more TL trains will significantly worsen their connections and Generalised journey times.

I should have said, all sorts of options for resolving the EMR journey time / pathing time issue were looked at between 2010 and 2017. What you see now was the best compromise.

I don't recollect WCML wires being "messed with" when IC upped linespeed to 110mph in 80's only for a 125mph.

Headspans innit. Very few of those on the WCML sections 110’d in the 80s / 90s.

(Accepting that there are headspans on the ECML, but it’s to do with the Reg Arms. Details in the MML electrification thread)

 

[43066]

London Bridge and Farringdon are double reverse curves and they have driver self despatch because the driver has a a far better view of the doors from the onboard screens than the platform despatchers have.

Point of order: they have driver self dispatch at those locations because it’s seen as cheaper/more efficient (and the LB GTR platforms are largely straight, but narrow).

Plenty of class 700 drivers would disagree with you on the “better view” point. Let’s not go there…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The WCML/ECML were evidently electrified to a higher standard than the MML, and/or previously upgraded as new traction became available.

WCML was independent wiring on portals from the outset so it was probably less of risk when they went to 110mph with the additional uplift. ECML was designed for 125mph from the outset with higher tensions. Be interesting to know what they actually did with the GN wiring between KX and Hitchin to allow higher speeds when the cl91's were introduced.

 

[nw1]

It's rather questionable as to whether putting anything other than the simple "Bedford-Brighton plus Luton-Sutton loop" through it was about as good an idea as Castlefield ending up the way it did. For high frequency services, a simpler service pattern is desirable, people can change onto it if they need to access it, as per Crossrail which is more or less the same thing but east to west.

I wouldn't call it stupid, but I would say that the level of complication which has been introduced was the wrong decision.

You could I suppose argue it's only replicating the Merseyrail Wirral Line, but that has far fewer interactions and a much lower frequency overall.

I do think Thameslink is unnecessarily complex and I'm not convinced it's a good idea going into South Eastern territory which means you have two operators in that area when one might keep things simpler.

Also it seems not such a good idea making Thameslink the only operator for let's say the local stations on the way to Horsham. This means that a delay way up in North Cambridgeshire can screw up the service down in Sussex. I'd have said something like the Horsham stoppers would be better off reverting to London Bridge or Victoria as they always did, as the service would have only travelled from London rather than a hundred odd miles away.

So Thameslink could focus solely perhaps on a two pronged Brighton-Bedford and Brighton-Cambridge system.

The only question with that in mind though is, where do you terminate all those trains through the core section - they obviously need somewhere to go! Or do you just cut the core frequency so that there are less TL services in total? I have suggested making TL more 'suburban' a la Crossrail before, e.g. making Caterham and Tattenham southern termini, but I remember there were reasons why that could not happen.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I do think Thameslink is unnecessarily complex and I'm not convinced it's a good idea going into South Eastern territory which means you have two operators in that area when one might keep things simpler.

Also it seems not such a good idea making Thameslink the only operator for let's say the local stations on the way to Horsham. This means that a delay way up in North Cambridgeshire can screw up the service down in Sussex. I'd have said something like the Horsham stoppers would be better off reverting to London Bridge or Victoria as they always did, as the service would have only travelled from London rather than a hundred odd miles away.

So Thameslink could focus solely perhaps on a two pronged Brighton-Bedford and Brighton-Cambridge system.

The only question with that in mind though is, where do you terminate all those trains through the core section - they obviously need somewhere to go! Or do you just cut the core frequency so that there are less TL services in total? I have suggested making TL more 'suburban' a la Crossrail before, e.g. making Caterham and Tattenham southern termini, but I remember there were reasons why that could not happen.

Caterham and Tattenham Corner aren't options if your swapping them with the Horsham and Gatwick Airport services as they can't take 12 coach train, plus you'd just be causing the same problem you have with the local stations to Horsham and swapping them to the local stations to Tattenham Corner.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Caterham and Tattenham Corner aren't options if your swapping them with the Horsham and Gatwick Airport services as they can't take 12 coach train, plus you'd just be causing the same problem you have with the local stations to Horsham and swapping them to the local stations to Tattenham Corner.

I just do not get this "thing" about Caterham and Tattenham Corner being optimum locations for a Thameslink service - the latter in particular being pretty much a traffic desert , compared to the much , much better traffic options of minor places like (when it recovers) of Gatwick and many other larger settlements. (and those that feed into the urban areas of the South Coast) - 2 car turf not so long ago.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I do think Thameslink is unnecessarily complex and I'm not convinced it's a good idea going into South Eastern territory which means you have two operators in that area when one might keep things simpler.

Also it seems not such a good idea making Thameslink the only operator for let's say the local stations on the way to Horsham. This means that a delay way up in North Cambridgeshire can screw up the service down in Sussex. I'd have said something like the Horsham stoppers would be better off reverting to London Bridge or Victoria as they always did, as the service would have only travelled from London rather than a hundred odd miles away.

So Thameslink could focus solely perhaps on a two pronged Brighton-Bedford and Brighton-Cambridge system.

The only question with that in mind though is, where do you terminate all those trains through the core section - they obviously need somewhere to go! Or do you just cut the core frequency so that there are less TL services in total? I have suggested making TL more 'suburban' a la Crossrail before, e.g. making Caterham and Tattenham southern termini, but I remember there were reasons why that could not happen.

It certainly lacks, particularly on Sth side, a contingency plan to deal with disruption and more needs to be done to use L.Bdge Ctl side which I guess is a driver route knowledge issue with drivers based on the MML or GN.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I just do not get this "thing" about Caterham and Tattenham Corner being optimum locations for a Thameslink service - the latter in particular being pretty much a traffic desert , compared to the much , much better traffic options of minor places like (when it recovers) of Gatwick and many other larger settlements. (and those that feed into the urban areas of the South Coast) - 2 car turf not so long ago.

I think its just somewhere to send the trains. Its like Caterham having four trains an hour. It doesn't justify it, its just somewhere to send the suburban trains to terminate out the way

 

[43066]

ECML was designed for 125mph from the outset with higher tensions. Be interesting to know what they actually did with the GN wiring between KX and Hitchin to allow higher speeds when the cl91's were introduced.

Must admit I hadn’t appreciated KX - Hitchin wires were done separately to the rest of the ECML. Unless you mean it was upgraded for theoretical 140mph running by 91s (which I think was only achieved in testing due to signal sighting concerns)?