Why is the Thameslink Core So Slow?

[DynamicSpirit]

Thameslink trains are typically scheduled to take about 15 minutes between London Bridge and St. Pancras. Even allowing for the rather indirect geographical route, I make the distance just under 7km. So that's an average speed of 15-16mph. There are 3 intermediate stops en route. This is all on track that has recently been completely upgraded. Much of it brand new track. And trains computer-controlled for part of the route. And all brand new trains.

The Northern line typically seems to be scheduled for about 10 minutes to go between those stations. With 4 intermediate stops, much busier and quite old trains, a MUCH more frequent service (so more scope for trains to be held up behind other trains) and with the entire route through Victorian era tunnels - and I'm guessing, pretty old track.

What gives?

Seems a shame. There's clearly a need to get people off the Northern Line because it's so crowded, while Thameslink core trains are generally pretty quiet off-peak. I've experimented with Thameslink for some journeys into central London but have generally reverted to the overcrowded tube because Thameslink just isn't competitive on time through the core.

 

[BRX]

London bridge is not in the core, which starts from Blackfriars. Blackfriars to St Pancras takes about 7 minutes.

 

[Supercoss]

Line speed is 30 mph traction power changeover dwell also to consider

 

[modernrail]

I agree that it does feel slow and there is bags of capacity off-peak. I think Northern passengers would be astounded how much fresh air is carted around off-peak in the South East.

If Blackfriars to St Pancras is 7 minutes, which is absolutely fine, why so much padding from London Bridge to Blackfriars?

I think the real missed opportunity here is the failure to integrate the service properly into TfL maps. I just don't get it. It should be promoted to death to get people off the Northern line, especially as the trains tend to off-load plenty of passengers at the 'terminus' stations leaving plenty of space through the core, even in rush hour.

 

[BRX]

I assume the padding is there at least partly to increase the chance of services arriving at London Bridge slightly late, to still slot into their intended paths at Blackfriars. At Blackfriars any services from London bridge have to merge into the same track as everything coming via elephant.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think the real missed opportunity here is the failure to integrate the service properly into TfL maps. I just don't get it.

That's entirely deliberate. TfL want to promote their own services - they have no reason to be promoting other companies' services during a time where every penny of revenue counts for them. Hence the inclusion of the Overground on the "Tube map", too, a completely inaccurate inclusion (the same as TfL Rail is now included, and how the Elizabeth Line also will be).

 

[BRX]

Agree it should be on the tube map.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Agree it should be on the tube map.

Indeed - the issue then is just how much you show on the Tube map before it gets to the unwieldy mess that is the Rail & Tube map. I think the best option would be to have several different maps - one purely for TfL services, and marked as such(!), but with connections marked more articulately than just "National Rail services available", and another which includes all services as per the Rail & Tube map - perhaps on the ceiling of trains.

 

[modernrail]

That's entirely deliberate. TfL want to promote their own services - they have no reason to be promoting other companies' services during a time where every penny of revenue counts for them. Hence the inclusion of the Overground on the "Tube map", too, a completely inaccurate inclusion (the same as TfL Rail is now included, and how the Elizabeth Line also will be).

That is totally unacceptable. Millions of tax payers money has been spent on the Thameslink core. London has an overcrowding problem. Any opportunity to alleviate that must be taken as must the opportunity to make best use of the money spent on the core. The Government should mandate the change whether TfL likes it or not. It is all nationally owned infrastructure. It is a farce for TfL to try and justify Crossrail 2 whilst not ensuring existing infrastructure is used as much as possible and the Government should tell TfL that in no uncertain terms.

The Overground thing has become silly now. Orange should only be used for the circular route. Other routes should move to a numbered system or something like that and have a different colour. I would personally find it quite useful when travelling to outer London areas to have a numbered system. For instance, visitor attractions could say 'catch the NE1 from Liverpool Street'.

 

[BRX]

Indeed - the issue then is just how much you show on the Tube map before it gets to the unwieldy mess that is the Rail & Tube map. I think the best option would be to have several different maps - one purely for TfL services, and marked as such(!), but with connections marked more articulately than just "National Rail services available", and another which includes all services as per the Rail & Tube map - perhaps on the ceiling of trains.

I think there'd be a logic in including anything that crosses the area enclosed by the circle line, which would capture Crossrail and Thameslink but not the numerous lines that come into the main rail terminals. As others have said, including the Overground seems a bit dubious: if the logic is that it's a 'turn up and go' service then any other lines with a c15min frequency or better ought really to be included, especially in S London.

 

[Chrisyd]

I agree wholeheartedly about it being on the tube map, how many visitors to London arrive at London St Pancreas / Kings Cross going to the Tate Modern / Shakespeare's Globe look on the map and don't realise that there is a direct route from the middle of St Pancreas and you can exit on the South Bank. there are undoubtedly lots of other examples, this is just the one I have seen happen.

 

[Mikey C]

Many years ago the Tube map included both the Thameslink core and the Great Northern services from Moorgate to Finsbury Park. Plus the North London line.

No excuse for TfL to not include Thameslink now, though with the PATHETIC service at weekends at the moment, perhaps it's just as well...

 

[computerSaysNo]

The Overground thing has become silly now. Orange should only be used for the circular route. Other routes should move to a numbered system or something like that and have a different colour. I would personally find it quite useful when travelling to outer London areas to have a numbered system. For instance, visitor attractions could say 'catch the NE1 from Liverpool Street'.

So something like this (but including the other lines to the West and North)?

(see attached map)

 

[modernrail]

Indeed - the issue then is just how much you show on the Tube map before it gets to the unwieldy mess that is the Rail & Tube map. I think the best option would be to have several different maps - one purely for TfL services, and marked as such(!), but with connections marked more articulately than just "National Rail services available", and another which includes all services as per the Rail & Tube map - perhaps on the ceiling of trains.

I would show it at least from London Bridge/Elephant & Castle up to Cricklewood with arrows pointing off the map for Luton Airport and Gatwick Airport. If you then had the same airport arrows for Heathrow and City Airport on the Elizabeth Line (and a station at City?!?) then you would have a much more useful central zone map.

So something like this (but including the other lines to the West and North)?

(see attached map)

Exactly, but I think some letter prefixes would be good bearing in mind the number of routes requiring a designation. Perhaps compass points might work.

The case for this is even stronger in a digital age as there is lots that could be done with it. Imagine of your Google directions said 'Central line to Liverpool Street and then NE3 to Enfield.' Simples.

I would personally like to see this system across the country. It always gives me reassurance I haven't screwed up when I travel in other European countries that use this type of system. It's a very handy double check, especially with Google maps and that sort of thing.

 

[Ianno87]

I assume the padding is there at least partly to increase the chance of services arriving at London Bridge slightly late, to still slot into their intended paths at Blackfriars. At Blackfriars any services from London bridge have to merge into the same track as everything coming via elephant.

1 minute is put in before/after St Pancras from/to the north and also south of Blackfriars Jn (from/to the south), with a further 1 minute for services via London Bridge (placed somewhere between Blackfriars Jn and Bricklayers Arms). So 2 or 3 minutes per train overall, precisely for this reason

Otherwise, the point to point running times are pretty close to the capability of the rolling stock and line speed. But 1 minute dwell times are planned all day, right for the peak but 'slack' off peak.

Tube dwell times are probably more like 20-30 seconds per stop.

 

[swt_passenger]

Back to post 1, trains do not operate in ATO (computer controlled) yet, except under test conditions, and are not planned to until all drivers are trained and full 24 tph is in operation.
I don’t believe significant linespeed improvements were a general aim of the project.

 

[AndrewE]

Indeed - the issue then is just how much you show on the Tube map before it gets to the unwieldy mess that is the Rail & Tube map.

I like it, isn't it just a fact of life that a big dense network will inevitably have a map like it? Certainly simpler extracts can be useful but, as is being pointed out, if you Balkanise the network, or leave key through routes off a map, then it pushes non-expert people onto already-overloaded lines when investment has been made specifically to relieve them.
It's a bit like allowing the people running the M6 relief road set their tolls high to avoid the maintenance that would result from heavier useage.

 

[TFN]

I find it especially funny when people from Gatwick Airport that need King's Cross St Pancras take the Gatwick Express and then the Victoria Line, when there's a direct train there. They are completely oblivious to Thameslink because such a useful link isn't on the tube map.

Personally, I would try and avoid the Northern Line in the summer and choose Thameslink over the tube. I definitely wish it was on the tube map because when I mention Thameslink some people don't even know it exists.

It doesn't feel slow especially that City Thameslink and Blackfriars are pretty much 1 minute apart and the power changeover with the 700s are very quick

 

[cle]

30mph is fine given the station spacing (although St P to Farringdon is a slog on the tube, and it definitely hits higher!) - but they crawl just to keep to the padding. Hopefully when (if) the full timetable ever comes in, it'll have to quicken up - and thus become a viable 'tube line' for the inner section.

 

[mallard]

That's entirely deliberate. TfL want to promote their own services - they have no reason to be promoting other companies' services during a time where every penny of revenue counts for them.

Thing is, Thameslink was previously on the tube map!

It was removed in mid-1999 (well after privatisation). The NLL and Northern City line were both included until that point too (the NLL, of course, reappeared once it was taken over by TfL). It seems that the first map to include the complete Jubilee Line Extension in a solid line (i.e. no longer "under construction") also dropped these NR routes. Maybe it was to encourage people to use the JLE rather than the NLL for journeys like Stratford->West Hampstead?

Somewhat interestingly, the NLL seems to have been added at the same time as the transfer of the Northern City to BR (which continued to be shown for continuity, I suppose)... I wonder what the reasoning was? Before that, the only BR line shown was the Waterloo and City.

As for revenue, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Surely everyone who benefits from TL knows about its existence already and there must already be some sort of revenue sharing agreement for the parallel sections. Obviously travelcard products are shared revenue. If revenue abstraction is such a concern, why was the Northern City line kept on the map for ~24 years after it was taken over by BR, when it clearly competes with the Victoria and Northern lines?

 

[davyp]

Sitting in my third floor hotel room not more than 40 metres from the line outside the southern end of Blackfriars station watching the 700s go into and out of the station. All very slow (in and out) and all nearly empty over the last hour. No doubt getting more full (at least going south) as the next hour to two roll by. More passengers to and from Buxton to Man. Pic. than on Thameslink off peak.

 

[Ianno87]

As for revenue, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Surely everyone who benefits from TL knows about its existence already and there must already be some sort of revenue sharing agreement for the parallel sections. Obviously travelcard products are shared revenue. If revenue abstraction is such a concern, why was the Northern City line kept on the map for ~24 years after it was taken over by BR, when it clearly competes with the Victoria and Northern lines?

Remember the number of even regular users who travel on Contactless or Pay As You Go these days. The revenue allocated, is presumably, more directly allocated based on where you actually touch in and out.

The number of PAYG journeys between London Bridge and KXSP, and are ignorant of the existance of Thameslink (especially having not existed for 3 years, and relatively low frequency before that) must be very considerable and very lucrative to LU.

And times have definitely moved on with LU's funding arrangements since these lines last appeared on the map.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If Blackfriars to St Pancras is 7 minutes, which is absolutely fine, why so much padding from London Bridge to Blackfriars?

Checking the timetables, it's actually 9 minutes Blackfriars to St Pancras. Scheduled times almost always seem to be: 6-7 minutes London Bridge-Blackfriars, 2 mins Blackfriars-City Thameslink, 2 mins City Thameslink-Farringdon, 5 mins Farringdon-St Pancras, for a total journey time of 15-16 minutes. It's exactly the same journey times going the other way.

I suspect you couldn't do much about the Farringdon-Blackfriars section, so the issue is really the long journey times STP-Farringdon and Blackfriars-London Bridge.

 

[hassaanhc]

Thing is, Thameslink was previously on the tube map!

It was removed in mid-1999 (well after privatisation). The NLL and Northern City line were both included until that point too (the NLL, of course, reappeared once it was taken over by TfL). It seems that the first map to include the complete Jubilee Line Extension in a solid line (i.e. no longer "under construction") also dropped these NR routes. Maybe it was to encourage people to use the JLE rather than the NLL for journeys like Stratford->West Hampstead?

Somewhat interestingly, the NLL seems to have been added at the same time as the transfer of the Northern City to BR (which continued to be shown for continuity, I suppose)... I wonder what the reasoning was? Before that, the only BR line shown was the Waterloo and City.

As for revenue, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Surely everyone who benefits from TL knows about its existence already and there must already be some sort of revenue sharing agreement for the parallel sections. Obviously travelcard products are shared revenue. If revenue abstraction is such a concern, why was the Northern City line kept on the map for ~24 years after it was taken over by BR, when it clearly competes with the Victoria and Northern lines?

The NLL (Richmond to North Woolwich) did reappear on pocket maps (at least) in the early 2000s

 

[edwin_m]

I think there'd be a logic in including anything that crosses the area enclosed by the circle line, which would capture Crossrail and Thameslink but not the numerous lines that come into the main rail terminals. As others have said, including the Overground seems a bit dubious: if the logic is that it's a 'turn up and go' service then any other lines with a c15min frequency or better ought really to be included, especially in S London.

Technically that would include the main line from Charing Cross, but I assume you don't intend those.

An alternative criterion might be to include any main line service that connects two Tube stations, hence might be of use on a journey starting and ending on the Tube. But that gets a bit messy as it picks up things like Victoria-Balham and Waterloo-Wimbledon, and gets even worse if DLR are still on the map and therefore rail routes linking those have to be included too.

 

[Ianno87]

Checking the timetables, it's actually 9 minutes Blackfriars to St Pancras. Scheduled times almost always seem to be: 6-7 minutes London Bridge-Blackfriars, 2 mins Blackfriars-City Thameslink, 2 mins City Thameslink-Farringdon, 5 mins Farringdon-St Pancras, for a total journey time of 15-16 minutes. It's exactly the same journey times going the other way.

I suspect you couldn't do much about the Farringdon-Blackfriars section, so the issue is really the long journey times STP-Farringdon and Blackfriars-London Bridge.

The 1 minute variation between Blackfriars and London Bridge is on account of 2.5 minute headways having to spread to 3-3.5 minutes to account for the slightly longer dwell times and platform re-occupations at London Bridge compared to in the core 'proper'. So consecutive trains have to be 'slowed down' to fall back slightly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slow compared to what?

The TL core is quicker both in terms of linespeed and journey time than it was in 2010 pre upgrade.

It is also approximately the same speed as the subsurface underground when in tunnels - when you travel between St P and Farringdon you occasionally run alongside an LU service in the adjacent tunnels, and it will be travelling at the same speed (in my experience, although no doubt some SSL trains do go faster in certain conditions). Of course the journey time from Farringdon to St P is quicker by tube as it has about 500 metres less of a journey to make.

Linespeed is a consistent 30mph throughout, save for a couple of short sections of 25, and some 20 at and around London Bridge. This is because of topography, signal spacing and in a couple of places gauging in the tunnels. Pre upgrade there was a lot more 20mph.

The Blackfriars to St P and vice versa journey time is 8 minutes start to stop including stops; add in the 1 minute dwell at the ‘far’ end and it is 9. Pre upgrade it was 10 off peak and generally 12 in the peak. Each station has a 1 minute dwell (enabled by the Class 700s) and the voltage changeover is done within that.

There is no ‘padding’ in the core from Blackfriars to St P. Indeed the timetable wouldn’t work if there was.

There is recovery time (at least one minute, sometimes more) for every train on the approach to Blackfriars Junction from the south, and Canal Tunnels Junction from the north. There is usually at least another minute on the immediate approaches further out (usually the country side of Dock Jn, Belle Isle, London Bridge or Elephant & Castle). This is to allow for any small delays so that trains can be punctual on entering the core. Of course it means that trains that are already on time will be slow on approach waiting time, but it does make the whole system more reliable. This is standard practice for other similar railways, however it is more often covered by extended dwells at the penultimate station to the core, which isn’t an option for most Thameslink routes.

Re off peak loadings. Clearly there is more space off peak due to the fixed formation trains. But I can assure everyone that many TL trains are very well loaded off peak and at weekends. Standing is not uncommon.

 

[hwl]

So something like this (but including the other lines to the West and North)?

(see attached map)

Lots of those routes don't actually operate as shown on you map though, good luck finding a Victoria - Beckenham Jn via Palace service (they are London Bridge via Tulse Hill) and where are the Victoria - London Bridge via Palace services, the Victoria - West Croydon services actually run via Palace and the Victoria Sutton/epsom services via Streatham Common and the stopping London Bridge - East Croydon (ultimately Caterham) services via Tulse Hill, Streatham and Streatham Common.

Hence the actual number of numbered services needed on your map is actually just over 4 times higher than you have displayed.

 

[computerSaysNo]

Lots of those routes don't actually operate as shown on you map though, good luck finding a Victoria - Beckenham Jn via Palace service (they are London Bridge via Tulse Hill) and where are the Victoria - London Bridge via Palace services, the Victoria - West Croydon services actually run via Palace and the Victoria Sutton/epsom services via Streatham Common and the stopping London Bridge - East Croydon (ultimately Caterham) services via Tulse Hill, Streatham and Streatham Common.

Hence the actual number of numbered services needed on your map is actually just over 4 times higher than you have displayed.

I know. The purpose of the map was to show what routes could operate if trains were scheduled to run using the minimum number of flat crossings possible (less flat crossings = more train paths = less overcrowding and better service in terms of trains per hour). Some of the routes would require infrastructure enhancements but most would be able to operate immediately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it is slow. What is slow is the sub-surface part of the Tube - excruciatingly so compared with the main bit.