Your suggestions for the next Southeastern franchise

[yorksrob]

Thanks for the very interesting information - I was aware of the curve (and have travelled over it a few times) but wasn't aware of it's operational significance, or of the fact that trains went to Grosvenor by it.

As mentioned, the SER built the curve's viaduct to carry three tracks, so laying a couple of berthing sidings on it would have seemed a sensible solution.

I have to say that it seems a very rum do to have gone to all the expense and upheaval of separating out SE and Thameslink trains, only to result in fewer SE trains being able to run than before !

 

[kentman]

As mentioned, the SER built the curve's viaduct to carry three tracks, so laying a couple of berthing sidings on it would have seemed a sensible solution.!

It's an option in the Kent route study page 60:

Replace the Metropolitan Reversible line with a single 12-car siding to serve London Cannon Street. The line currently allows empty coaching stock movements between London Cannon Street and London Blackfriars, but will become redundant following implementation of the revised Thameslink service in 2018. It is therefore proposed that the Metropolitan Reversible line be modified into a single 12-car siding to facilitate peak services into London Cannon Street Station.

 

[yorksrob]

It's an option in the Kent route study page 60:

Will one siding be enough to recreate the lost capacity though !

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, it's a mess. A mess caused by the DfT, due to people with insufficient railway knowledge making vital decisions.

Is it really a mess? So there's a slight loss of capacity at Cannon Street, which is being accommodated by Thameslink taking over a couple of Woolwich line services an hour. You could argue that this should have been better publicised at the public consultation stage, but it doesn't seem a huge harm. The rebuild at London Bridge was always about allowing many more of the ex-Southern trains to run through to Luton/Peterborough/etc., improving reliability, and relieving congestion on the concourse etc. at London Bridge. I don't at the moment see any reason to doubt that it will achieve those objectives. I don't think it was ever advertised as allowing more capacity for SouthEastern.

It would be great to get more frequent services on SouthEastern, but that's a whole separate project - not least because that requires sorting out the mess of flat junctions stretching out as far as Hither Green, which constitute another huge capacity/reliability restriction.

 

[swt_passenger]

As far back as the London and SE RUS they were referring to a slightly lower capacity at Cannon St post Thameslink, (for the reasons given above). It shouldn't be news to anyone who's been keeping up with all the advance info. But that probably doesn't include Ministers and civil servants...

 

[RichardN]

Not sure if it is long enough for 12 cars and built upon by network rail now, but couldn't they have put some carriage sidings on the old goods yard alongside where Thameslink will ascend on the viaduct? Google maps shows that a single track from Cannon Street could get there without interfering with the Thameslink tracks. And there is room widthwise for at least 3 tracks, it appears (though slight widening needed where the new tracks join from LB. I guess that it would mean a new bridge.)

 

[Antman]

Yes, it's a mess. A mess caused by the DfT, due to people with insufficient railway knowledge making vital decisions.

No change there then.

Why is it a mess? A slight loss of Cannon Street capacity is quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things but then I suppose the DfT are sitting ducks when it comes to throwing abuse.

 

[Antman]

I wonder if it will finally get a Sunday service?

Is there really enough demand for a Sunday service?

 

[urpert]

Is there really enough demand for a Sunday service?

Well, there are a ton of new flats within walking distance of Sundridge Park station now...

 

[otomous]

Don’t see the problem with a tiny loss of Cannon Street trains, there are plenty more going to Blackfriars and City Thameslink instead. Chances are plenty of passenger destinations are equally served by any of these stations.

 

[Ianno87]

Will one siding be enough to recreate the lost capacity though !

One siding = in theory one single potential extra train arriving at some point in the morning peak, and departing back in the evening peak

As I said before, the total number of possible Kent trains via London Bridge is maintained by the through Thameslink service.

 

[Bald Rick]

TfL had a plan to install two tracks on the remaining curve to get more trains out of platforms to increase tph in the peaks. That appears to have gone with Grayling blocking devolution hence the issues we now see.

Unfortunately, TfLs plan was dreamt up by a couple of people playing with crayons. When it was pointed out by people who had the knowledge (and the drawings in front of them) that it wasn't physically possible, there were some red faces, and TfL shuffled off. This was about 4 years ago. It had nothing whatsoever to do with devolution, and was well before the current Secretary of State's tenure.

As Ianno87 says, one siding is possible - just. But it would mean losing the connection between Blackfriars and Cannon St, which whilst not planned to be used under normal service will be useful during certain engineering blocks.

 

[ComUtoR]

What about extending the existing sidings there ? or is room also an issue ?

 

[Bald Rick]

What about extending the existing sidings there ? or is room also an issue ?

At Cannon st? 4 car max. No space at all.

 

[ComUtoR]

I was hoping they could extend it further towards the platforms. I've never used that sidings. Its a shame as that space seems totally wasted.

They really have screwed that new layout up. It is stupidly complex and losing the ability to re-marshal units is going to catch them out.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looking at the franchise specs again, I get the impression there is a serious attempt to reduce the number of conflicting moves at Lewisham:

If I've understood everything correctly (might be worth someone checking), then it looks like the off-peak service patterns for metro services around Lewisham will be:

• Hayes line: 2tph Victoria-Lewisham-Hayes + 2pth Charing Cross-Hayes (avoiding Lewisham)
• Sidcup line: 2ph Victoria-Lewisham-Sidcup etc. + 4tph Charing Cross - Sidcup line (avoiding Lewisham)
• Orpington line: 2tph Cannon Street-St. John's-Orpington line + 2tph Charing Cross-Orpington line. Franchisee must stop either one of these pairs at Lewisham, but not the other.

• Bexleyheath line: 2tph Cannon Street-Lewisham-Bexleyheath etc. + 4tph Charing Cross-Lewisham-Bexleyheath etc.
• Woolwich line through Lewisham: 2tph Cannon Street-Lewisham-Woolwich etc.

I make that just 4tph at Lewisham crossing from the Charing Cross-lines towards Blackheath each way. Crossing from St. John's towards Hither Green there might be either 2tph or nothing, depending which of the Orpington services the franchisee chooses to stop at Lewisham.

Looks to me like that should improve reliability in the area quite a bit. I wonder if it'll also allow journey time reductions between London Bridge and Lewisham/Hither Green. There are also 4tph planned for Lewisham-Victoria, in increase on today's 2tph.

On the other hand, I'm sure some people will not be happy at the change in service patterns. Commuters from the Hayes line to the city in particular are probably not going to be happy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A few other changes that I noticed (again, if I understood the doc correctly - someone please correct me if I haven't):

• Tonbridge-Ashford goes up to 4tph. 2 of these could run fast between Paddock Wood and Ashford.
• Ashford-Dover goes to 3tph
• Dover-Sandwich increases to 2tph (franchisee has some choice in where to run these services after Sandwich, but must run at least 1tph to Ramsgate).
• Paddock Wood-Maidstone West goes up to 2tph.
• Grove Park-Bromley North goes to 4tph

On the other hand, there appear to be only 3tph listed between Dartford and Gravesend, which seems a little odd to me. Wonder if there's a typo in the spec?

 

[yorksrob]

Hayes services going to Victoria ! I don't recall seeing that before.

 

[ComUtoR]

I make that just 4tph at Lewisham crossing from the Charing Cross-lines towards Blackheath each way.

The new layout makes it possible so that none of those services need to cross at Lewisham.

Looks to me like that should improve reliability in the area quite a bit. I wonder if it'll also allow journey time reductions between London Bridge and Lewisham/Hither Green. There are also 4tph planned for Lewisham-Victoria, in increase on today's 2tph.

What do you mean about 'reliability' ? It will certainly reduce the conflict and reduce the delays but forcing everything through a single platform also creates other issues. It also means that you have trains for Charing Cross coming from Sidcup/Hayes and Orpington. How many tph is that ? There will also be an issue with crowding too. If ever train for Charing Cross exclusively uses a single platform, a single delay and your going to get a crush. Add in 2tph for Vic also adds to the passenger load.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Class 466]

Hayes services going to Victoria ! I don't recall seeing that before.

Well you’ll see it this Christmas! http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/HYS/2017/12/23/0853

 

[Barn]

I make that just 4tph at Lewisham crossing from the Charing Cross-lines towards Blackheath each way. y.

6tph at peak times, though, all Bexleyheath.

It would be more equitable if the peak time service to Charing Cross from Blackheath could be 4tph Bexleyheath and 2tph North Kent.

 

[HH]

Why is it a mess? A slight loss of Cannon Street capacity is quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things but then I suppose the DfT are sitting ducks when it comes to throwing abuse.

When you want to be announcing an increase then it's a mess...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The new layout makes it possible so that none of those services need to cross at Lewisham.



What do you mean about 'reliability' ? It will certainly reduce the conflict and reduce the delays but forcing everything through a single platform also creates other issues. It also means that you have trains for Charing Cross coming from Sidcup/Hayes and Orpington. How many tph is that ? There will also be an issue with crowding too. If ever train for Charing Cross exclusively uses a single platform, a single delay and your going to get a crush. Add in 2tph for Vic also adds to the passenger load.

Not sure I understand any of this. How does the new layout make it possible for none of the services to cross at Lewisham?

I mean improved reliability precisely because there will be fewer delays arising from the conflicting moves at Lewisham. I would have thought that a single platform for all services to a particular destination at Lewisham would be a good thing, as it would mean passengers will know which platform to go to for a particular destination. (That won't quite happen at Lewisham, but it looks like it will be close, with all Victoria services going from the Hither Green line, and most Charing Cross/Cannon Street services going from the Blackheath line).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

6tph at peak times, though, all Bexleyheath.

It would be more equitable if the peak time service to Charing Cross from Blackheath could be 4tph Bexleyheath and 2tph North Kent.

Yes that's a tricky one. I'm guessing that that DfT are trying to minimise the number of different termini that trains from each line go to. The North Kent line will already be split between Cannon Street and Blackfriars services, so routing a few trains to Charing Cross as well will mean a fairly restricted service to each destination, and to some extent destroy the turn-up-and-go feature of the metro services. I think for that reason I'm happy that DfT have done it the way they have, even though it's a little annoying for me as usually when I go to London, I'm heading for Charing Cross, and this change means there will no longer be any direct trains for me (living along the North Kent line).

 

[Antman]

When you want to be announcing an increase then it's a mess...

What are you on about? Your irrational rants make no sense at all.

 

[Antman]

A few other changes that I noticed (again, if I understood the doc correctly - someone please correct me if I haven't):

• Tonbridge-Ashford goes up to 4tph. 2 of these could run fast between Paddock Wood and Ashford.
• Ashford-Dover goes to 3tph
• Dover-Sandwich increases to 2tph (franchisee has some choice in where to run these services after Sandwich, but must run at least 1tph to Ramsgate).
• Paddock Wood-Maidstone West goes up to 2tph.
• Grove Park-Bromley North goes to 4tph

On the other hand, there appear to be only 3tph listed between Dartford and Gravesend, which seems a little odd to me. Wonder if there's a typo in the spec?

I think Paddock Wood to Maidstone West merits two trains an hour but I'm not sure Ashford merits four trains an hour?

 

[ComUtoR]

Not sure I understand any of this. How does the new layout make it possible for none of the services to cross at Lewisham?

Because you don't have to route the Charing cross services across the junction. You could, in theory, go london bridge to New Cross/St Johns then come up the North Kent into Lewisham.

I mean improved reliability precisely because there will be fewer delays arising from the conflicting moves at Lewisham.

The delays are generally minimal at Lewisham. Most of the issues are caused elsewhere. Any conflicting move is a potential delay for sure but the service is impacted to much by other issues.

I would have thought that a single platform for all services to a particular destination at Lewisham would be a good thing, as it would mean passengers will know which platform to go to for a particular destination. (That won't quite happen at Lewisham, but it looks like it will be close, with all Victoria services going from the Hither Green line, and most Charing Cross/Cannon Street services going from the Blackheath line).

That's very true but it causes other issues. Overcrowding will be an issue and the platform is tight at Lewisham. The other issue is that can a single platform cope with the high tph ? Even with the conflict removed you still end up in a situation where congestion becomes detrimental. A single train failure at Lewisham will stack trains behind each other. Part of the reason why there is a diversionary that is not being used in normal running is to allow an escape route when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing. The question I've already asked is that why not use it in normal service to avoid the Lewisham conflict ? As I say, in theory, its possible but practical ? I doubt it.

Bald Rick put it best when it was discussed about everyone just heading to London Bridge and changing. Passengers don't like doing that but it looks to be the best option to get into London. It no longer matters if you get on a Cannon or Cross. London Bridge and then change gives you the most options.

 

[Mollman]

In the bid scoring section: "Bids that include commitments to fund and deliver enhancements to the railway infrastructure (for example enabling High Speed services to reach Hastings) that will deliver passenger benefits and/or increase franchise value beyond the franchise term (over and above those enhancements included in Network Rail’s latest Enhancements Delivery Plan)."

Cheers

 

[HH]

What are you on about? Your irrational rants make no sense at all.

Hardly rants and not irrational. The government wishes to be announcing increased trains, but actually the numbers will be decreasing. What's irrational about that?

 

[Antman]

Hardly rants and not irrational. The government wishes to be announcing increased trains, but actually the numbers will be decreasing. What's irrational about that?

It's already been explained to you why there will be a slight reduction in capacity at Cannon Street.