Great Northern and Thameslink May 18 service changes

[bramling]

2V90, the 1758 London Kings Cross to Welwyn Garden City was increased to 8 cars when the class 321s arrived with FCC - around 2009. Until that time, the equivalent train stopped at New Barnet but not Hadley Wood (all the other XX:28, XX:58 King's Cross to Welwyn Garden City formed of either a single 4 car unit or 2 x 3 car class 313s continued to serve New Barnet). The reason given at the time was that 8 car trains could not serve platform 4 at New Barnet, although I can remember an extended stop at platform 3 at New Barnet while aboard an 8 car class 365 while a Person Under a Train incident further north was sorted out. 2V90 does not use SDO at Hadley Wood platform 4.

I do not know why New Barnet requires SDO, the physical platforms do appear long enough for 8 cars, however 8 car trains southbound formed of 2 x class 387, such as 2Y87, the 08:44 Welwyn Garden City to King's Cross cut out the doors in the 7th and 8th car, though this train was previously formed of pairs of 317s, 321s or 365s and these did not cut any doors out.

The issue with New Barnet down platform might be to do with the signal berth being tight, as immediately north of the platform is a crossover DS to DF, and the signal is very close to the platform IIRC.

Going back to the 90s, all of these services were KX to Letchworth at XX22 and XX52, and all were 2x313, except 1652 KX to Letchworth which was 1x317, although latterly became 1x365. With the “seats for you” timetable all these services were axed, the paths being used for the extra XX23 and XX53 KX to Royston fast services and today’s XX28 and XX58 to Welwyn only. The 1654 KX to Cambridge seems to be an exception to the rule.

 

[notverydeep]

Going back to the 90s, all of these services were KX to Letchworth at XX22 and XX52, and all were 2x313, except 1652 KX to Letchworth which was 1x317, although latterly became 1x365.

If I remember correctly, despite their frequent stops south of Welwyn Garden City, these trains then ran non-stop to Stevenage, at least northbound, so that Welwyn North had only two trains per hour (which were then the XX06 and XX36 trains to Cambridge), even in the peaks, plus of course the one non-stop southbound AM (currently 1R47, the 0732 Royston - King's Cross), northbound PM (currently 1C96, the 18:23 King's Cross to Cambridge).

It was stated at the time by FCC, that the XX22 and XX52 were cut back to Welwyn Garden City to reduce congestion over Digswell viaduct. Quite how they have now found sufficient capacity for two more Welwyn North stops per hour, with what appears to be the same signalling as in 2009, I don't know. Even without these additional calls I frequently observe the Welwyn North stoppers being held to wait for fast services to go ahead at WGC or at Woolmer Green (just south of Knebworth to the north of the two track section), or even fast trains waiting for the stopping train to clear...

 

[bramling]

If I remember correctly, despite their frequent stops south of Welwyn Garden City, these trains then ran non-stop to Stevenage, at least northbound, so that Welwyn North had only two trains per hour (which were then the XX06 and XX36 trains to Cambridge), even in the peaks, plus of course the one non-stop southbound AM (currently 1R47, the 0732 Royston - King's Cross), northbound PM (currently 1C96, the 18:23 King's Cross to Cambridge).

It was stated at the time by FCC, that the XX22 and XX52 were cut back to Welwyn Garden City to reduce congestion over Digswell viaduct. Quite how they have now found sufficient capacity for two more Welwyn North stops per hour, with what appears to be the same signalling as in 2009, I don't know. Even without these additional calls I frequently observe the Welwyn North stoppers being held to wait for fast services to go ahead at WGC or at Woolmer Green (just south of Knebworth to the north of the two track section), or even fast trains waiting for the stopping train to clear...

The 22 and 52s did call at Welwyn North and Knebworth. A friend of mine used to use them daily to Knebworth.

I wonder if nowadays there’s the slight benefit that the extra trains stopping at Welwyn North generally now run non-stop from/to London, so there is slightly less impact on the viaduct compared to the service having to mesh in with goings on at Welwyn Garden City (both a time penalty of starting from a stand at Welwyn GC and then potentially coming onto the viaduct from a stand, and risk of delay). Also modern units accelerate better than 313s and 317s which may help a bit. I still agree with you that it’s highly fragile however.

 

[notverydeep]

The 22 and 52s did call at Welwyn North and Knebworth. A friend of mine used to use them daily to Knebworth.

I wonder if nowadays there’s the slight benefit that the extra trains stopping at Welwyn North generally now run non-stop from/to London, so there is slightly less impact on the viaduct compared to the service having to mesh in with goings on at Welwyn Garden City (both a time penalty of starting from a stand at Welwyn GC and then potentially coming onto the viaduct from a stand, and risk of delay). Also modern units accelerate better than 313s and 317s which may help a bit. I still agree with you that it’s highly fragile however.

Sorry, you are correct and my memory was wrong, I have just checked my Dec 07 National Rail Timetable pdf! Thus there is a precedent for 4 tph, but of course there is also clearly a precedent for deciding that 4 tph at Welwyn North was a bad idea...

 

[greatkingrat]

In those days it wasn't just Welwyn Viaduct that was the problem, there was also the flat crossing at Hitchin for down trains. At least now the flyover has removed one of the pinch points.

 

[Failed Unit]

The Moorgate service looks complete. There aren't any obvious gaps where additional trains could be squeezed in.

No trains departing WGC between 0654 and 0722. I am expecting a service to Kings cross and Moorgate at around 0705.

 

[OwenB]

No trains departing WGC between 0654 and 0722. I am expecting a service to Kings cross and Moorgate at around 0705.

Service equivalent to 0634 WGC-KGX too?

 

[bramling]

In those days it wasn't just Welwyn Viaduct that was the problem, there was also the flat crossing at Hitchin for down trains. At least now the flyover has removed one of the pinch points.

... but still leaving Hitchin platforms as a bottleneck. Fair enough there's probably not much that can be done about that, especially in the down direction, but there was talk at one point of making some slight signalling changes to that up trains from the Cambridge branch not booked to call at Hitchin could access the up fast immediately north of Hitchin platform. There are plenty of occasions when this small change would make a big difference to throughput in the area. The track is largely there, although one crossover is GF worked at present.

The current service of XX23 & XX53 to Royston pre-dates the flyover, which probably explains why the May timetable slightly adjusts things so these call at Hitchin instead of the Peterborough trains.

 

[Downthelane]

Service equivalent to 0634 WGC-KGX too?

Yes all these key KGX slower services are still missing and I would love to know why as they are a the key part of this jigsaw and it worries me why they can't be shown yet.

 

[jon0844]

If what I've been told is true we may have to wait a little longer. Apparently a fair few issues with the final data that need to be resolved.

 

[Failed Unit]

If what I've been told is true we may have to wait a little longer. Apparently a fair few issues with the final data that need to be resolved.

Some of the ones loaded don’t make sense or we will have unhappy people at Hadley Wood, Oakleigh Park and New Southgate who will see their service reduced at the expense of harringay and Hornsey. Example 0654 WGC - Moorgate. There are others. Are those stations really having a worse service in the peak then off-peak?

 

[Ianno87]

... but still leaving Hitchin platforms as a bottleneck. Fair enough there's probably not much that can be done about that, especially in the down direction, but there was talk at one point of making some slight signalling changes to that up trains from the Cambridge branch not booked to call at Hitchin could access the up fast immediately north of Hitchin platform. There are plenty of occasions when this small change would make a big difference to throughput in the area. The track is largely there, although one crossover is GF worked at present.

The current service of XX23 & XX53 to Royston pre-dates the flyover, which probably explains why the May timetable slightly adjusts things so these call at Hitchin instead of the Peterborough trains.

Those crossovers (the facer and trailer just around the corner on the Cambridge line) are unsuitable for that operation. They haven't had more than occasional use for many years, not main line signalled in the Up direction and are simply not fast enough.

The benefit of the current fast Cambridge routeing is that the sweep around the corner reasonably quickly (c. 40mph?) then accelerate to neatly hit the 70mph crossover at Hitchin South onto the Up Fast.

Going via the crossovers you suggest would be much slower (doubt they're fit for even 25mph - which in itself would trigger an approach control on approach) then the merge onto the Up Fast would be much slower. So while you might "solve" the Slow Line constraint, throughput on the Fast Line would worsen.

Agree with you in principle that your suggested functionality would be useful, but don't think the geometry/space is there to provide it without a detrimental effect on something else.

 

[Bald Rick]

Those crossovers (the facer and trailer just around the corner on the Cambridge line) are unsuitable for that operation. They haven't had more than occasional use for many years, not main line signalled in the Up direction and are simply not fast enough.

The benefit of the current fast Cambridge routeing is that the sweep around the corner reasonably quickly (c. 40mph?) then accelerate to neatly hit the 70mph crossover at Hitchin South onto the Up Fast.

Going via the crossovers you suggest would be much slower (doubt they're fit for even 25mph - which in itself would trigger an approach control on approach) then the merge onto the Up Fast would be much slower. So while you might "solve" the Slow Line constraint, throughput on the Fast Line would worsen.

Agree with you in principle that your suggested functionality would be useful, but don't think the geometry/space is there to provide it without a detrimental effect on something else.

Yep the main to main crossover on the branch is 15mph and controlled from a ground frame. Even if it was fully controlled from the PSB it would be next to useless.

 

[Roy Badami]

Still no Sunday Cambridge semi-fasts uploaded (unless they are axing these from May?) Assuming they are not axed, any idea whether the Sunday semi-fasts are a Brighton service (as on other days) or terminating in London?

(As an aside, it's interesting that the Sunday Cambridge slows to KGX are GN, whereas the Mon-Fri and Sat slows to KGX are TL. Presumably an attempt to maximise customer confusion...)

EDIT: Surely TL is a seven-day-a-week service, and not just Mon-Sat????

 

[Class 170101]

387s are 4 coaches, 313s are 3 coaches. There is no room on the Northern City Line for trains longer than 6 coaches. Four cars off peak, and during the peak won't go down well.

Right hand side signals need a distance of 19 metres from the front of the train to the signal, to be sighted clearly for a 387 (due to the massive gangway), and most of the signals on the NCL are on the right hand side at the stations. They can't be moved/co-actors fitted overnight.

(Saying that, they will need to be moved/have co-actors fitted for class 717s which have equally bad/worse visibility on the Driver's right hand side.)

I doubt you would need to move the signals for the 387s because being four cars only (no eight cars due to platform length) they would be shorter than a pair of Class 313s and as such could stand back from the signals for the appropriate distance for viewing and still fit in the platform.

Not that 387s will be goinmg to Moorgate anyway!

 

[neilm]

Is the Cambridge service really going to be hourly until December? If so, will it be replaced with a Bedford/London Bridge (maybe) instead? If nothing replaces it, then this severely affects the BML from Brighton.

 

[Failed Unit]

Is the Cambridge service really going to be hourly until December? If so, will it be replaced with a Bedford/London Bridge (maybe) instead? If nothing replaces it, then this severely affects the BML from Brighton.

Yes. Won’t be replaced by a Bedford as it will be too many trains in the core which is why it isn’t running now.

Although the Bedford - Brighton planned service is running. So that will provide a half hourly Thameslink- Brighton so same as today. In fact better when you consider the 1tph from Cambridge.

 

[neilm]

Yes. Won’t be replaced by a Bedford as it will be too many trains in the core which is why it isn’t running now.

Although the Bedford - Brighton planned service is running. So that will provide a half hourly Thameslink- Brighton so same as today. In fact better when you consider the 1tph from Cambridge.

Yes but currently from Brighton its 2x Bedford and 2x London Bridge. In June it will only be 3x and not evenly spaced either. So Brighton, Three Bridges and Gatwick loose out by this change.

 

[bramling]

Those crossovers (the facer and trailer just around the corner on the Cambridge line) are unsuitable for that operation. They haven't had more than occasional use for many years, not main line signalled in the Up direction and are simply not fast enough.

The benefit of the current fast Cambridge routeing is that the sweep around the corner reasonably quickly (c. 40mph?) then accelerate to neatly hit the 70mph crossover at Hitchin South onto the Up Fast.

Going via the crossovers you suggest would be much slower (doubt they're fit for even 25mph - which in itself would trigger an approach control on approach) then the merge onto the Up Fast would be much slower. So while you might "solve" the Slow Line constraint, throughput on the Fast Line would worsen.

Agree with you in principle that your suggested functionality would be useful, but don't think the geometry/space is there to provide it without a detrimental effect on something else.

It would be very useful when something is a few minutes late coming from the Peterborough direction. You talk about the Cambridge trains sweeping round the corner at 40 mph and then 70 mph, but spare a thought for the few-minutes-late Peterborough train which may well be being held at signals to allow the Cambridge train to get a clear run - the Peterborough train that will then be getting later and later and will be missing its path everywhere.

Nowadays it's *very* common for something ex Peterborough to be held for a fast Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn train which is still as far back as Letchworth. If the layout was different then there's more scope for the Peterborough train to be brought into Hitchin platform and onwards on the US, whilst the fast Cambridge train can immediately get full unrestrictive signal aspects onto the UF, without losing any time. This scenario crops up several times per day on a typical day. The crossover in question may well need relaying to increase speed, however surely this shouldn't be too much of a problem? I'm not convinced there would need to be approach control, as the line speed is already low for the curve into Hitchin.

Another omission is failure to provide a faster crossing from the UF to US1 approaching Finsbury Park. Considering this move is now rather more common than in times past, it's surprising a flashing yellow wasn't provided.

 

[paul332]

There's an ominous gap in northbound services between 16:57 and 17:07 from Blackfriars, with a 12-minute gap on the Bedford line. Notably a half-hour gap between 16:49 and 17:19 in stoppers (Kentish Town etc), which is totally unacceptable. The 15:30 from Rainham to Luton seems to have gone missing, among others.

 

[ijmad]

There's an ominous gap in northbound services between 16:57 and 17:07 from Blackfriars, with a 12-minute gap on the Bedford line. Notably a half-hour gap between 16:49 and 17:19 in stoppers (Kentish Town etc), which is totally unacceptable. The 15:30 from Rainham to Luton seems to have gone missing, among others.

It's not the only missing train I've noticed browsing RTT, they can be spotted from the ID patterns, e.g. 9K57 from Luton to Orpington, which I really hope runs as it's the only thing missing from the promised 'all day' 4tph on the Catford Loop.

 

[Fred26]

It would be very useful when something is a few minutes late coming from the Peterborough direction. You talk about the Cambridge trains sweeping round the corner at 40 mph and then 70 mph, but spare a thought for the few-minutes-late Peterborough train which may well be being held at signals to allow the Cambridge train to get a clear run - the Peterborough train that will then be getting later and later and will be missing its path everywhere.

Nowadays it's *very* common for something ex Peterborough to be held for a fast Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn train which is still as far back as Letchworth. If the layout was different then there's more scope for the Peterborough train to be brought into Hitchin platform and onwards on the US, whilst the fast Cambridge train can immediately get full unrestrictive signal aspects onto the UF, without losing any time. This scenario crops up several times per day on a typical day. The crossover in question may well need relaying to increase speed, however surely this shouldn't be too much of a problem? I'm not convinced there would need to be approach control, as the line speed is already low for the curve into Hitchin.

Another omission is failure to provide a faster crossing from the UF to US1 approaching Finsbury Park. Considering this move is now rather more common than in times past, it's surprising a flashing yellow wasn't provided.

I think this should be implemented. Having fast trains pass through HIT platform when it could be avoidable is silly.
The other thing I'd do is reuse the old Royal Mail route, opening a new platform. This would mean that you could have a train from Cambridge and one from Peterborough in at the same time, rather than one waiting for the other to leave. If the points were in place to allow fast trains from the branch straight onto the UF then you could have three trains passing/at Hitchin upside as opposed to one (or two if you count mainline expresses) today.

 

[philjo]

We could have done with an alternative route on Tuesday morning. there was a train held in Hitchin platform around 07:25 with the passenger alarm activated. I was on the train behind held for about 20 minutes and there were 2 other services behind us backing past Letchworth as there was no way to get off the Cambridge branch onto the mainline.

 

[APUK002]

GN the rubbish WiFi leading to a duplicate post.

Works fine for me?

 

[APUK002]

We could have done with an alternative route on Tuesday morning. there was a train held in Hitchin platform around 07:25 with the passenger alarm activated. I was on the train behind held for about 20 minutes and there were 2 other services behind us backing past Letchworth as there was no way to get off the Cambridge branch onto the mainline.

Isn’t there points before Hitchin onto down(to London) Fast line?

 

[bramling]

Isn’t there points before Hitchin onto down(to London) Fast line?

No. Currently everything from the Cambridge branch has to go through Hitchin platform 1. So adding an eighth station stop if you're on a non-stop from Cambridge which is stuck behind an all stations service, or as previously mentioned an opportunity to get tied up with the Peterborough service.

For GN outer suburban services Hitchin can be just as much of a bottleneck as Welwyn at times.

 

[APUK002]

No. Currently everything from the Cambridge branch has to go through Hitchin platform 1. So adding an eighth station stop if you're on a non-stop from Cambridge which is stuck behind an all stations service, or as previously mentioned an opportunity to get tied up with the Peterborough service.

For GN outer suburban services Hitchin can be just as much of a bottleneck as Welwyn at times.

Oh ok.

 

[Failed Unit]

We could have done with an alternative route on Tuesday morning. there was a train held in Hitchin platform around 07:25 with the passenger alarm activated. I was on the train behind held for about 20 minutes and there were 2 other services behind us backing past Letchworth as there was no way to get off the Cambridge branch onto the mainline.

Every delay / cancellation was down to this on Tuesday.

 

[Ianno87]

It would be very useful when something is a few minutes late coming from the Peterborough direction. You talk about the Cambridge trains sweeping round the corner at 40 mph and then 70 mph, but spare a thought for the few-minutes-late Peterborough train which may well be being held at signals to allow the Cambridge train to get a clear run - the Peterborough train that will then be getting later and later and will be missing its path everywhere.

Nowadays it's *very* common for something ex Peterborough to be held for a fast Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn train which is still as far back as Letchworth. If the layout was different then there's more scope for the Peterborough train to be brought into Hitchin platform and onwards on the US, whilst the fast Cambridge train can immediately get full unrestrictive signal aspects onto the UF, without losing any time. This scenario crops up several times per day on a typical day. The crossover in question may well need relaying to increase speed, however surely this shouldn't be too much of a problem? I'm not convinced there would need to be approach control, as the line speed is already low for the curve into Hitchin.

Another omission is failure to provide a faster crossing from the UF to US1 approaching Finsbury Park. Considering this move is now rather more common than in times past, it's surprising a flashing yellow wasn't provided.

I don't disagree that the functionality would be useful, what I'm saying is that I don't think there's space to get a sutable speed crossover to do so to make it practically usable (i.e. fast enough to avoid approach control, i.e. within 10mph of the 'main' line speed). In the area on the Cambridge line you've got the yard connection, opposite direction crossover and the bridge over the road there, all to fit. The line itself isn't quite straight, you'll probably need interlocking changes, and the track cant/curvature on the Down line (which I think is still jointed track as a result) may not suit decent speed Up direction movements.

If you trigger an approach control, you end up just causing more delay than you solve. Remember that Up Slow ex-Peterborough movents are in the minority at this junction (4tph), compared to ex-Cambridge (6-8tph) and Up Fast (6ish tph). Thus prioritising the Cambridge route (and accordingly designing the infrastructure this way) and its merge into the Up Fast flow for the appropriate services makes most sense.

Yes but currently from Brighton its 2x Bedford and 2x London Bridge. In June it will only be 3x and not evenly spaced either. So Brighton, Three Bridges and Gatwick loose out by this change.

Brighton goes from 2tph to London Bridge and 2tph to the Thameslink core to 3tph to both. And faster to the core.

Gatwick goes from 4tph to London Brige and 4tph to the Thameslink core to 5tph to London Bridge and 5tph to the Thameslink core. And faster to the core.

Don't get how that constitutes "losing out"? Yes you lose a train Brighton-Gatwick-Croydon, but there's plenty of other trains for that anyway...

 

[TimG]

Brighton goes from 2tph to London Bridge and 2tph to the Thameslink core to 3tph to both. And faster to the core.

Gatwick goes from 2tph to London Brige and 4tph to the Thameslink core t

Don't get how that constitutes "losing out"? Yes you lose a train Brighton-Gatwick-Croydon, but there's plenty of other trains for that anyway...

Because it's a reduction in capacity and frequency to London