FANTASY: If you could decide the routes on ThamesLink

[DynamicSpirit]

I would squash as many serveries as I could per hour through the core. I don't really mind where the trains go to terminate after that. I would be tempted to limit the geographical extent of those terminating locations to help with service resilience & depot requirements. I would, however, try to run a simple clock face timetable with trains to those terminating locations at the same minutes every hour and try and spread out the load.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Most of the answers here don't solve one of the main problems: Thameslink is trying to be all things to all people, by mixing up metro and mainline services and running to far too many destinations, which massively complicates the timetable and leaves it open to disruption spreading through the network.

I'm not sure exactly what I would do, however, the principle I would follow would be to use Thameslink to run very frequent services to a few destinations. I'd also aim to emphasize metro over mainline services - since I think metro tend to be more suitable for running through London in order to enable easy journeys for people travelling within London. That would probably mean, that North of the Thames, I'd focus on maximising frequencies on the St. Albans-Bedford route, and using whatever capacity is left over to supplement the Stevenage/Welwyn/Hertford stoppers on the East Coast line. South of the Thames - less certain, but probably focus services through London Bridge on the metro routes through East/West Croydon. And have the Elephant and Castle services terminate at Blackfriars. Keep the mainline Bedford-Brighton trains only really because those are historically established, but I would try to avoid adding any more 'fast' services.

 

[CMS]

Deleted

 

[700007]

Although potentially convenient for some, do you mean Chislehurst or Bromley South? Would be a difficult and slow route via the Hayes Line if the latter.

Doesn't the current Maidstone East service go via Bromley South? (Expecting Bromley Boy to comment!)

 

[Ianno87]

Doesn't the current Maidstone East service go via Bromley South? (Expecting Bromley Boy to comment!)

Currently, yes, but when it becomes a through Cambridge-Maidstone service it will run direct from London Bridge to Swanley via Chislehurst (non-stop) so will no longer serve Bromley South.

 

[backontrack]

Doesn't the current Maidstone East service go via Bromley South? (Expecting Bromley Boy to comment!)

I think it goes to Victoria that way.

When I was little, my dad and I once got on a London Bridge-Ashford service that called only at Chislehurst and Maidstone East. It may have continued on to Canterbury West - I can't recall, but I think it did.

 

[nw1]

I'm not really a Thameslink user (occasionally used it to go from East Croydon to Gatwick when the quickest way from CJ to Gatwick involved a change at EC) but it seems to me from the reports here that the best approach would be to keep it to a small number of core lines to avoid the spread of disruption.

Seems the main axes are Brighton/Bedford/Cambridge so keep those.

Maybe 4 an hour from Brighton, 2 to Bedford, 2 to Cambridge. Principal stations only on the Brighton line (i.e. something like Haywards Heath-Three Bridges-Gatwick-Redhill-East Croydon), let the stoppers be the slower Victoria services so that long-distance travel (Brighton-Luton, Brighton-Cambridge etc) is as fast as possible.

The Reigate trains could become Thameslinks as Reigate is only a small way off the main line so effects of disruption would presumably be less. They could go onto Bedford in place of the former Brighton to Bedford services.

The other 'classic' routes (Luton to Wimbledon 2 an hour, Luton to Sevenoaks 2 an hour IIRC?) to stay as they are.

That's 10 an hour. To give 12 an hour (one every 5 minutes through the City section (London Bridge-KX) presumabily sufficient) maybe a couple of Caterhams an hour? Again it's somewhere not far off the core route. North of London maybe they could go to somewhere like Stevenage.

Naive assessment maybe but from what I've been reading here, keeping things to a small number of 'core' routes would help prevent the spread of disruption yet still retain a 'turn up and go' 5 minute interval through the City section.

 

[Ianno87]

The Reigate trains could become Thameslinks as Reigate is only a small way off the main line so effects of disruption would presumably be less. They could go onto Bedford in place of the former Brighton to Bedford services.

Reigate can only take maximum 4 car trains (when turning back) at present.

 

[RichJF]

Reigate can only take maximum 4 car trains (when turning back) at present.

Been discussion for years about extending the platform to 8-cars or building a new pl 3 (family member commutes from Reigate & semi-active on rail users' forums).

 

[Abpj17]

still retain a 'turn up and go' 5 minute interval through the City section.

(Just quoting this post to illustrate - the point applies to others too)

My impression is that a relatively small minority need or want a turn up and go service through the core. The emphasis is on the extremities - for commuters and leisure services. So 5 min in the core is pointless if the service to, say, Bedford or Brighton is only half-hourly

 

[NorthKent1989]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Most of the answers here don't solve one of the main problems: Thameslink is trying to be all things to all people, by mixing up metro and mainline services and running to far too many destinations, which massively complicates the timetable and leaves it open to disruption spreading through the network.

I'm not sure exactly what I would do, however, the principle I would follow would be to use Thameslink to run very frequent services to a few destinations. I'd also aim to emphasize metro over mainline services - since I think metro tend to be more suitable for running through London in order to enable easy journeys for people travelling within London. That would probably mean, that North of the Thames, I'd focus on maximising frequencies on the St. Albans-Bedford route, and using whatever capacity is left over to supplement the Stevenage/Welwyn/Hertford stoppers on the East Coast line. South of the Thames - less certain, but probably focus services through London Bridge on the metro routes through East/West Croydon. And have the Elephant and Castle services terminate at Blackfriars. Keep the mainline Bedford-Brighton trains only really because those are historically established, but I would try to avoid adding any more 'fast' services.

You and @DarloRich have kinda said what I've thought about Thameslink all along, uts unclear on what it wants to be: A Inter-urban/regional railway or a second metro system for London that happens to serve loads of out laying, smaller cities surrounding London.

Crossrail knew it was always going to be an express interurban metro within a mode separate from the tube, a happy medium between the two extremities Thameslink aspires to be.

I would have Thameslink become this, an express interurban metro, which has more lines than Crossrail but far less than current Thameslink, sure its nice linking Cambridge to Brighton but you can still do thus but it would involve a change.

 

[Ianno87]

(Just quoting this post to illustrate - the point applies to others too)

My impression is that a relatively small minority need or want a turn up and go service through the core. The emphasis is on the extremities - for commuters and leisure services. So 5 min in the core is pointless if the service to, say, Bedford or Brighton is only half-hourly

In the peaks, you'd be surprised how many people use the core section as a 'tube line', particularly southwards from St. Pancras (which has been establishing itself over many years); just look at the numbers turning up to join southbound trains in the morning peak. In due course, that'll happen at London Bridge going north too.

 

[nw1]

(Just quoting this post to illustrate - the point applies to others too)

My impression is that a relatively small minority need or want a turn up and go service through the core. The emphasis is on the extremities - for commuters and leisure services. So 5 min in the core is pointless if the service to, say, Bedford or Brighton is only half-hourly

Though both Bedford and Brighton would retain four an hour in many of the schemes here, and in any case, the extremities would get services from other TOCs as well.

I was trying to come up with a compromise solution which would (in particular) allow people from the south to reach Farringdon or St Pancras via a 'turn up and go' change at London Bridge, and to a lesser extent, from the north to get to London Bridge, while avoiding a messy and unreliable mish-mash of Thameslink and non-Thameslink on a large range of routes.

I can potentially vouch for the usefulness of this even coming from SWR land as I tried to get to Farringdon in March (forgetting that Thameslink was closed) via Waterloo-Waterloo East-London Bridge-Thameslink and, having got to London Bridge and finding no Thameslink, having to rely on a slower tube journey. Not sure how you'd do Waterloo Farringdon via tube directly though without looking it up, admittedly.

In summary I'd probably make Thameslink more like the RER or an S-bahn, but keep the Brighton-Bedford as it's a long-established service and bring in Cambridge because of its importance as a destination.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Doesn't the current Maidstone East service go via Bromley South? (Expecting Bromley Boy to comment!)

Yes it does and I would assume it still would after December 2019,I’ve read nothing that the current
Vic-Maidstone service would be replaced by the Thameslink.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes it does and I would assume it still would after December 2019,I’ve read nothing that the current
Vic-Maidstone service would be replaced by the Thameslink.

Pretty sure the idea is to have *both* 2tph to Vic and 2tph to Thameslink (so Maidstone East gets 4tph in total).

 

[Antman]

I think it goes to Victoria that way.

When I was little, my dad and I once got on a London Bridge-Ashford service that called only at Chislehurst and Maidstone East. It may have continued on to Canterbury West - I can't recall, but I think it did.

Sounds like it was on diversion due to engineering work? They normally call at Otford as well.

 

[backontrack]

Sounds like it was on diversion due to engineering work? They normally call at Otford as well.

They'd also normally call at a few more stations - Swanley, Borough Green & Wrotham, West Malling, Bearsted, Wye, Chilham and Chartham.

 

[Antman]

They'd also normally call at a few more stations - Swanley, Borough Green & Wrotham, West Malling, Bearsted, Wye, Chilham and Chartham.

Not trains diverted from their usual route via Tonbridge, just Chislehurst for connections to Orpington, Otford for Sevenoaks and Maidstone East for Paddock Wood via the Medway Valley line.

 

[JonathanH]

Been discussion for years about extending the platform to 8-cars or building a new pl 3 (family member commutes from Reigate & semi-active on rail users' forums).

Er, 12 please or there isn't any point in changing the platforms.

On the other hand, my colleagues who live in Clapham Junction are fairly happy with their half hourly through Victoria to Reigate services following the timetable change.