• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Your suggestions for the next Southeastern franchise

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
That's no good then is it? I am quite disappointed that we're going to lose the semi-fast Gillingham in a few months time. Why not use the Thameslink via Sidcup instead or isn't that possible?:s:'(

Thameslink via Sidcup would mean running the thameslinks off the separate lines at north Kent east junction (London end of new cross) and then running them down to Hither Green along one of the most congested bits of the southeastern mainline which is already a notorious bottleneck.

That wouldn’t bode well for reliability in the core and wouldn’t do much for SE’s services passing through the area, either.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
7 Jan 2009
Messages
864
Its also because GTR aspire to run 24tph in the peaks and Windmill Junction near East Croydon wasn't able to handle the level of Thameslink trains so 4tph had to come from somewhere else, namely Rainham via Greenwich and Maidstone East via Swanley into London Bridge.

Indeed, that's the logic that's led to the Rainham and Maidstone E. services being routed this way. But has anyone really quizzed NR/GTR on why Windmill Jnc. can't handle it? It's obviously a busy junction, of course, but this constraint was never raised in the public inquiry when powers for Thamesink project were obtained. The ELL has added some trains to WCR and more or less hard wired them into a 15 min cycle, so is this weird plan really just a long term consequence of both adding trains and having them run clock face (not really SR practice in the peaks, so as to maximise capacity...) And how essential is it that the TL operate at 24tph instead 20tph? The current TL implementation plan worked out by Chris Gibb's group has the Rainhams being introduced last of all. My guess is that actually means 'many years hence': although the Bermondsey Flyunder and LBG rebuild permit a very sensible sorting out of the approach tracks as has been pointed out on here, it's obviously somewhat messed up by introducing this crossing move into the Greenwich line. It might make more sense if the Rainham service (if it ever does run) was plumbed into the Bexleyheath route and back via the Angerstein link to Charlton...but that would probably (finally) make the flat crossings at Lewisham inoperable (at least in the up direction). Or if more CX to Greenwich line trains (if they ever come back) were dropped and the TL trains could be dropped precisely into those slots timing wise.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,401
Indeed, that's the logic that's led to the Rainham and Maidstone E. services being routed this way. But has anyone really quizzed NR/GTR on why Windmill Jnc. can't handle it? It's obviously a busy junction, of course, but this constraint was never raised in the public inquiry when powers for Thamesink project were obtained. The ELL has added some trains to WCR and more or less hard wired them into a 15 min cycle, so is this weird plan really just a long term consequence of both adding trains and having them run clock face (not really SR practice in the peaks, so as to maximise capacity...) And how essential is it that the TL operate at 24tph instead 20tph? The current TL implementation plan worked out by Chris Gibb's group has the Rainhams being introduced last of all. My guess is that actually means 'many years hence': although the Bermondsey Flyunder and LBG rebuild permit a very sensible sorting out of the approach tracks as has been pointed out on here, it's obviously somewhat messed up by introducing this crossing move into the Greenwich line. It might make more sense if the Rainham service (if it ever does run) was plumbed into the Bexleyheath route and back via the Angerstein link to Charlton...but that would probably (finally) make the flat crossings at Lewisham inoperable (at least in the up direction). Or if more CX to Greenwich line trains (if they ever come back) were dropped and the TL trains could be dropped precisely into those slots timing wise.
A very large number of Junctions in the Windmill Bridge Jn area on the "slow" lines have signal spacing of 8 or 10 cars which may or may not have had been picked up on at the inquiry.
Since the Public Inquiry:
Circa 50% of metro services lengthened to 10car
East Grinstead lengthened to 12 from 8car
London Overground.
Bringing back P7 at Norwood Jn etc. will have been on the agenda at time of the Inquiry but got can'ed later and is now being resurrected as part of the proposed XWB /East Croydon rebuild.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,910
Indeed, that's the logic that's led to the Rainham and Maidstone E. services being routed this way. But has anyone really quizzed NR/GTR on why Windmill Jnc. can't handle it? It's obviously a busy junction, of course, but this constraint was never raised in the public inquiry when powers for Thamesink project were obtained. The ELL has added some trains to WCR and more or less hard wired them into a 15 min cycle, so is this weird plan really just a long term consequence of both adding trains and having them run clock face (not really SR practice in the peaks, so as to maximise capacity...) And how essential is it that the TL operate at 24tph instead 20tph? The current TL implementation plan worked out by Chris Gibb's group has the Rainhams being introduced last of all. My guess is that actually means 'many years hence': although the Bermondsey Flyunder and LBG rebuild permit a very sensible sorting out of the approach tracks as has been pointed out on here, it's obviously somewhat messed up by introducing this crossing move into the Greenwich line. It might make more sense if the Rainham service (if it ever does run) was plumbed into the Bexleyheath route and back via the Angerstein link to Charlton...but that would probably (finally) make the flat crossings at Lewisham inoperable (at least in the up direction). Or if more CX to Greenwich line trains (if they ever come back) were dropped and the TL trains could be dropped precisely into those slots timing wise.

I think GTR are being overambitious about 24tph, for one thing, and especially for the Southern end of there are alot of branches linking not only four important main lines: The Brighton, South Eastern, Midland and East Coast main lines along with several major South London suburban lines such as: The Catford line, the North Kent line and the Sutton loop.

Crossrail only links the Great Western and Great Eastern main lines along with interchanging with the North Kent line at Abbey Wood and is relatively self contained as a route,

I think at the moment rather than adding extra routes and slowing down journeys on other lines (ie: The North Kent) GTR should run 20tph and once Windmill Junction is ironed then Thameslink can roll out 24tph along the Sussex routes as originally intended in a few years time, especially since South Central terminal platforms have been reduced now and will inevitably clog up platform space,
That way Stopping suburban Sydenham trains can run through the core as planned.
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2012
Messages
68
I understand what you're saying but there is only ever going to be 2tph to and from Lewisham to Hayes with the other 2tph going via the Ladywell curve. I think the Hayes line could justify 6tph but whether the capacity exists for that without cutting something else is another matter.

I also think Lewisham to Victoria would also justify 6tph but again capacity is the issue.

More passengers changing trains at Lewisham would be less than ideal to put it mildly.

I wonder if one could get some way to the 6tph by routing some of the Cannon Street/Orpington metros via Bromley South and the Beckenham curve?
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
I wonder if one could get some way to the 6tph by routing some of the Cannon Street/Orpington metros via Bromley South and the Beckenham curve?

The trouble with this idea is that you’d then lose some of the paths for the Orpington - Victoria services which are very busy, even at 4tph. Nobody originating at Orpington/Petts Wood would use these trains as they have better direct options to Ch+/CST.

The curve is single track, 20mph, and (in the up direction) requires crossing the down Chatham line at Beckenham junction, and the down mid-Kent line at new Beckenham, so quite a disruptive move for both lines. Especially if you were sending two trains each way per hour via the curve.

Variations of this are done occasionally at weekends, but wouldn’t be practical as a regular passenger move.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,787
Location
Herts
The trouble with this idea is that you’d then lose some of the paths for the Orpington - Victoria services which are very busy, even at 4tph. Nobody originating at Orpington/Petts Wood would use these trains as they have better direct options to Ch+/CST.

The curve is single track, 20mph, and (in the up direction) requires crossing the down Chatham line at Beckenham junction, and the down mid-Kent line at new Beckenham, so quite a disruptive move for both lines. Especially if you were sending two trains each way per hour via the curve.

Variations of this are done occasionally at weekends, but wouldn’t be practical as a regular passenger move.

In the early Networker period , there was an hourly service off peak tried on this section , to give a direct link Lewisham to Bromley - a very good idea , but it failed to last more than a timetable period or two.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,910
In the early Networker period , there was an hourly service off peak tried on this section , to give a direct link Lewisham to Bromley - a very good idea , but it failed to last more than a timetable period or two.

If ever they do increase the Hayes line to 6tph then perhaps they should run a service from Beckenham Junction to Charing Cross via Lewisham (not to Victoria because the Penge East line offers a quicker, less circuitous to that terminal)

That way you can provide an alternative rail link between Bromley and Lewisham via a single change at Beckenham Junction, also providing Beckenham with another choice of terminal and a ad hoc interchange with the London Overground.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
If ever they do increase the Hayes line to 6tph then perhaps they should run a service from Beckenham Junction to Charing Cross via Lewisham (not to Victoria because the Penge East line offers a quicker, less circuitous to that terminal)

That way you can provide an alternative rail link between Bromley and Lewisham via a single change at Beckenham Junction, also providing Beckenham with another choice of terminal and a ad hoc interchange with the London Overground.

I agree with that, although Cannon Street might be a better option.

Of course Lewisham to Bromley (North) can also be done with a change at Grove Park or Bromley South with a change at Catford/Catford Bridge.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,787
Location
Herts
I agree with that, although Cannon Street might be a better option.

Of course Lewisham to Bromley (North) can also be done with a change at Grove Park or Bromley South with a change at Catford/Catford Bridge.


I do not think there was much traffic to be honest - but a good idea as I said.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
I do not think there was much traffic to be honest - but a good idea as I said.

Was it lack of patronage or pathing issues that stopped it?

At least starting it from Beck J wouldn’t take up any paths on the Chathams - but would there be enough passengers to justify the use of stock? (To be fair, seeing how busy Catford Bridge alone can get, perhaps there would!).

Also, what has become of the TL Bedford service that used to originate in Beck J p4? I can’t remember the last time I saw it...
 
Last edited:

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,508
The trouble with this idea is that you’d then lose some of the paths for the Orpington - Victoria services which are very busy, even at 4tph. Nobody originating at Orpington/Petts Wood would use these trains as they have better direct options to Ch+/CST.

The curve is single track, 20mph, and (in the up direction) requires crossing the down Chatham line at Beckenham junction, and the down mid-Kent line at new Beckenham, so quite a disruptive move for both lines. Especially if you were sending two trains each way per hour via the curve.

Variations of this are done occasionally at weekends, but wouldn’t be practical as a regular passenger move.
And not everyone signs it either
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,787
Location
Herts
Was it lack of patronage or pathing issues that stopped it?

At least starting it from Beck J wouldn’t take up any paths on the Chathams - but would there be enough passengers to justify the use of stock? (To be fair, seeing how busy Catford Bridge alone can get, perhaps there would!).

Also, what has become of the TL Bedford service that used to originate in Beck J p4? I can’t remember the last time I saw it...

I worked for FCC for a little while - there was much grief from SE (a personal issue between the Train Planners really) about the Beckenham Jct starters , which were a short term fix apparently - but useful for the locals ....with regard to the Spur traffic , little uplift of traffic.

Being an old retired so and so , I remember despatching trains of Welsh coal for Beckenham Junction coal yard , which I think is now a Waitrose ?
 

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers
I worked for FCC for a little while - there was much grief from SE (a personal issue between the Train Planners really) about the Beckenham Jct starters , which were a short term fix apparently - but useful for the locals ....with regard to the Spur traffic , little uplift of traffic.

Being an old retired so and so , I remember despatching trains of Welsh coal for Beckenham Junction coal yard , which I think is now a Waitrose ?

It is, and the bay on that side only gets a couple of trains a day now. Though Shortlands is busy enough to justify starting the extras back at Bromley South.
 

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
246
From May 2018, according to the South Eastern timetable consultation, there should be a half hourly peak service from Beckenham Junction to Blackfriars. Not sure which platform it would use to terminate.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
From May 2018, according to the South Eastern timetable consultation, there should be a half hourly peak service from Beckenham Junction to Blackfriars. Not sure which platform it would use to terminate.

Be surprised if it uses anything other than the down bay
 
Joined
25 Jan 2016
Messages
549
Location
Wolverhampton
Quietly slipping out tonight (under all the fury of the East Coast shambles), is this from Stagecoach:

"S
tagecoach is one of three bidders shortlisted to bid for the new South Eastern franchise. We are pleased to confirm today our intention to form a relationship with Alstom Transport UK Limited (part of the Alstom SA Group) for that rail franchise, subject to DfT consent. It is intended that Alstom will hold 20% of the share capital of the train operating company if our bid for the franchise is successful."

If my thinking is correct, this is the 1st ever time a Train-Maker has had a direct share in a UK Rail Franchise bidder.
 
Last edited:

AlexNL

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
1,683
A Stagecoach/Alstom consortium? Now there's something I wasn't expecting.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,233
Thought Stagecoach had a close working relationship with Siemens, surprised to hear this...
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Thought Stagecoach had a close working relationship with Siemens, surprised to hear this...

Not particularly - they ordered a whole load of Desiros on SWT but that's about all there is in terms of their involvement with Siemens. If anything, it is worth remembering that their initial stock replacement plan was (if I remember what I read correctly) based on Alstom units instead of Desiros - up until the point when the 458s were starting to enter service.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,233
Not particularly - they ordered a whole load of Desiros on SWT but that's about all there is in terms of their involvement with Siemens. If anything, it is worth remembering that their initial stock replacement plan was (if I remember what I read correctly) based on Alstom units instead of Desiros - up until the point when the 458s were starting to enter service.
Isn’t Christian Roth still quite high up in Stagecoach - or has he left?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,401
Thought Stagecoach had a close working relationship with Siemens, surprised to hear this...
Siemens are merging their rail assets into joint venture with Alstom (all Alstom power assets went to GE 2 years ago)
 

FlippyFF

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
240
Location
Ashford, Kent
Quietly slipping out tonight (under all the fury of the East Coast shambles), is this from Stagecoach:

"S
tagecoach is one of three bidders shortlisted to bid for the new South Eastern franchise. We are pleased to confirm today our intention to form a relationship with Alstom Transport UK Limited (part of the Alstom SA Group) for that rail franchise, subject to DfT consent. It is intended that Alstom will hold 20% of the share capital of the train operating company if our bid for the franchise is successful."

If my thinking is correct, this is the 1st ever time a Train-Maker has had a direct share in a UK Rail Franchise bidder.
Quietly slipping out tonight (under all the fury of the East Coast shambles), is this from Stagecoach:

"S
tagecoach is one of three bidders shortlisted to bid for the new South Eastern franchise. We are pleased to confirm today our intention to form a relationship with Alstom Transport UK Limited (part of the Alstom SA Group) for that rail franchise, subject to DfT consent. It is intended that Alstom will hold 20% of the share capital of the train operating company if our bid for the franchise is successful."

If my thinking is correct, this is the 1st ever time a Train-Maker has had a direct share in a UK Rail Franchise bidder.


So who hasnt made the cut?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bidders-for-2-rail-franchises-named-by-government

The companies which want to run the next South Eastern franchise are:

  • South Eastern Holdings Ltd, a joint venture company that on franchise award will be wholly owned by Abellio Transport Group Ltd and East Japan Railway Company and Mitsui & Co Ltd
  • London and South East Passenger Rail Services Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Govia Ltd
  • Stagecoach South Eastern Trains Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stagecoach Group plc
  • Trenitalia UK Ltd, wholly owned by Trenitalia SpA
Simon
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I would think that it is trenitalia that have withdrawn, as they're focusing on the West Coast Partnership and East Midlands bids
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top