Could thameslink expand beyond bedford?

[Ladder23]

With the EWR going ahead etc, the northern point of the thameslink route will soon play a more important role! What’s the chances of TL expanding beyond Bedford in anyway.. if so, how? It’s always been in my mind an haven’t seen a topic to discus before

 

[bramling]

With the EWR going ahead etc, the northern point of the thameslink route will soon play a more important role! What’s the chances of TL expanding beyond Bedford in anyway.. if so, how? It’s always been in my mind an haven’t seen a topic to discus before

Notwithstanding any issues over the comfort provided by the present Thameslink trains, the problem is that all the available peak paths through the Thameslink core are spoken for, indeed there’s doubt as to whether it’s going to prove feasible to use the 23rd and 24th path.

So to run Thameslink beyond Bedford would require either extending two current Bedford terminators north of Bedford (increasing crowding south of there), or reallocating two existing Thameslink paths.

In essence yes you *could* do it, but it would be a case of choosing what’s going to have to be trimmed and altered to make way. I think it would be hard to find a way of doing it that doesn’t introduce negatives which outweigh any benefits.

It seems there’s simply too much demand inwards of Bedford to leave Thameslink capacity for people further north.

 

[D365]

No chance. Next question.

 

[Mag_seven]

With the EWR going ahead

What is the EWR?

Edit: I assume East West Rail.

 

[JonathanH]

With the EWR going ahead etc, the northern point of the thameslink route will soon play a more important role! What’s the chances of TL expanding beyond Bedford in anyway.. if so, how? It’s always been in my mind an haven’t seen a topic to discus before

What would be the point? They don't have enough rolling stock to extend existing services north of Bedford. The trains stop multiple times south of Bedford and in normal circumstances are reported to be full from St Albans.

Services north of Bedford are provided by a different operator.

 

[BayPaul]

The only point that I could see would be providing connectivity from Luton and St Albans to Cambridge and the ECML. That could well be worthwhile, extending one of the Bedford terminators would mean no extra paths needed through the core, and the long journey to St Pancras would mean that there wouldn't be many through passengers south of St Albans, so overcrowding wouldn't be affected. It might possibly help out with Bedford capacity. On the downside, 12 car trains would seem a tad excessive for a regional route of this nature, additional stock would be needed, and it would be one more potential source of delays for the Thameslink Core.

 

[Ladder23]

No chance. Next question.

Haha I like the honesty.

 

[Ladder23]

The only point that I could see would be providing connectivity from Luton and St Albans to Cambridge and the ECML. That could well be worthwhile, extending one of the Bedford terminators would mean no extra paths needed through the core, and the long journey to St Pancras would mean that there wouldn't be many through passengers south of St Albans, so overcrowding wouldn't be affected. It might possibly help out with Bedford capacity. On the downside, 12 car trains would seem a tad excessive for a regional route of this nature, additional stock would be needed, and it would be one more potential source of delays for the Thameslink Core.

Exactly what I was getting at, but I agree with all other posts above, it seems unlikely it will ever surface and it makes less sense than more, but hey! Interesting post I wanted to make for a while

 

[JonathanH]

The only point that I could see would be providing connectivity from Luton and St Albans to Cambridge and the ECML. That could well be worthwhile, extending one of the Bedford terminators would mean no extra paths needed through the core, and the long journey to St Pancras would mean that there wouldn't be many through passengers south of St Albans, so overcrowding wouldn't be affected. It might possibly help out with Bedford capacity. On the downside, 12 car trains would seem a tad excessive for a regional route of this nature, additional stock would be needed, and it would be one more potential source of delays for the Thameslink Core.

I think the point about that is whether it is preferable to mix arterial routes and radial ones. Instead of Bedford, consider Reading. Someone has decided that it is preferable to run trains from Southampton to Birmingham and London to Oxford and the Cotswolds rather than running them from London to Birmingham via Reading and from Southampton to the Cotswolds. Running from Slough to Birmingham might attract some custom but you can't connect every location - some people have to change trains. Keeping Bedford simple with interchange between the two routes makes more sense than taking long commuter trains off on a long ramble.

 

[ABB125]

The only way I can see Thameslink being extended is if a new "Bedford North" is built. Other than that, no chance.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only way I can see Thameslink being extended is if a new "Bedford North" is built. Other than that, no chance.

Yeah, a few years ago extending Thameslink to Corby was regularly proposed. But in the days of fleet sizes being designed to be just right for the agreed DfT services (or just less), it‘s nigh on impossible for a significant extension. Something else would have to be binned.

 

[cle]

I would think Corby or even lesser (a Bedford North or Wellingborough), might be worth an extension once per hour, if developments went ahead - and a Wixams station might add to any cross-Bedford demand too.

Doing that might enable a current/planned EMT Electric to Corby path to be redirected onto the mainline - maybe sending the other slow to at least Leicester, offering better connections across the network.

Journey times might need the Lutons to alternate - or some more outer fasts which skip Harpenden, Harlington etc... as used to be more common.

 

[Ladder23]

I would think Corby or even lesser (a Bedford North or Wellingborough), might be worth an extension once per hour, if developments went ahead - and a Wixams station might add to any cross-Bedford demand too.

Doing that might enable a current/planned EMT Electric to Corby path to be redirected onto the mainline - maybe sending the other slow to at least Leicester, offering better connections across the network.

Journey times might need the Lutons to alternate - or some more outer fasts which skip Harpenden, Harlington etc... as used to be more common.

wixhams yes now that is something I often hear spoken of amongst local residents. Wasn't there a deal in place where the station should of been built with the estate?

 

[cle]

It keeps getting pushed back. That combined with a Bedford North (discussed elsewhere) would make the Thameslink outer a little bit slower, and busier. So it might raise the question of a new 'outer' category which could reach Wellingborough once an hour, for instance - and less stops south of Flitwick.

Equally the Brent Cross station was once upon a time proposed as being an inner turn point for the 8 car services, or generally upping service (so nothing would turn at Kentish Town) - but not sure where that ended up.

 

[Ladder23]

It keeps getting pushed back. That combined with a Bedford North (discussed elsewhere) would make the Thameslink outer a little bit slower, and busier. So it might raise the question of a new 'outer' category which could reach Wellingborough once an hour, for instance - and less stops south of Flitwick.

Equally the Brent Cross station was once upon a time proposed as being an inner turn point for the 8 car services, or generally upping service (so nothing would turn at Kentish Town) - but not sure where that ended up.

The huge bottle neck thameslink rely on with limited paths etc is a huge issue for them to expand north or sound I imagine. Simply getting any ideas together makes the idea sound impossible when adding more trains through London.

 

[mr_jrt]

Another option is to relieve the southern MML in order to have the capacity to extend outwards. i.e. if you were to upgrade the Hendon lines and operate a passenger service over them, then you could drop all the Thameslink calls to the section they serve. You would probably need to extend them to at least Mill Hill Broadway for interchange though (with West Hampstead being the other interchange), and I'm not sure the Brent Cross developers would be happy for Thameslink to sail though their new station!

(flight of fancy warning)

Ideally you would extend the Hendon lines all the way to St Albans and all Thameslink services could then run semi-fast south of there though. Then you could maybe think about projecting beyond Bedford...Corby and Northampton, perhaps

i.e.

• Corby-all stations-Bedford-Luton/airport-St Albans-Mill Hill-West Hampstead-core
• Northampton-all stations-Bedford-Luton/airport-St Albans-Mill Hill-West Hampstead-core
• Bedford-all stations-Luton/airport-St Albans-Mill Hill-West Hampstead-core
• Luton-all stations-St Albans-Mill Hill-West Hampstead-core

...and St Albans-all stations-West Hampstead-? as a London Overground service on the Hendon lines.

 

[cle]

I think once ATO is in place, and the question marks on the southern half are resolved (Maidstone) - any growth would need to be with narrowing the gap between peak and off-peak 24tph. The Finsbury Park services are, I believe, all covered now - I don't see Welwyn-Maidstone happening.

Growth therefore could be in more slows (all stations to BXT or St Albans/Luton) - or in whichever stopping patterns are chosen for the outers.

Clearly, 'fast to St Albans and all stations to Bedford' is not suitable for all of the South Midlands discussions, especially with new stations, now wires to Corby, and hopefully one day beyond M H'boro. Leicester is 100 miles from London and further than Thameslink should really extend - but 1tph EMT electrics might suit instead. It's at least a destination, no offence to Corby but I can't see much counter-travel.

I think anything on the LO network to Dudding Hill should be completely separate, and doesn't substitute TL Core commuter demand remotely.

 

[mr_jrt]

Gist was to mirror the DC lines on the WCML. All stations LO and interchange to the semifasts at the hubs.

 

[cle]

They have their 6 tracks from Watford into Euston though, and the DC is completely separate (other than final mile) - plus no St P/Core divide to worry about. It's much neater. And more punctual, as doesn't get impact by a delay at London Bridge, for instance. The DC lines are wildly underused though, but that's another convo.

 

[mr_jrt]

Nobody rides the DC all the way to Euston from the ends of the line unless there's disruption, so the principle holds - Elstree to Mill Hill on LO (or, without requiring the flight of fancy extension, say, Cricklewood to West Hampstead on LO) then change to Thameslink for the core is the same in principle as LO Hatch End to Harrow then the ACs to Euston. ...and given that they would be changing at West Hampstead, the fact it doesn't go to the same core is largely irrelevant as long as West Hampstead could handle the interchange volumes. TBH, I would personally advocate a tunnel from south of West Hampstead to just east of Gospel Oak, to give Goblin services (freight, especially) access to the Dudding Hill line without crossing the MML on the level...but that doesn't really affect the use of the Hendon lines providing the local service for Thameslink.

 

[cle]

Other than actually getting to London cleanly. TL only even use 2 of 4 tracks through Kentish Town most commonly, so it's a lot less roomy than the WCML. Appreciate the passenger habits (St Albans folk don't tend to take the slows either, and those are far better than riding the DC to Watford!) - but I was talking about lines/capacity.

 

[London Trains]

Appreciate the passenger habits (St Albans folk don't tend to take the slows either, and those are far better than riding the DC to Watford!) - but I was talking about lines/capacity.

Which passengers would ever choose to use slower services overtaken by fast services (other than people unfamiliar with the service accidentally getting the slow service as it terminates where they want to go)?

 

[A0]

Which passengers would ever choose to use slower services overtaken by fast services (other than people unfamiliar with the service accidentally getting the slow service as it terminates where they want to go)?

If you're guaranteed a seat on the slower service you might take that. Certainly at Finsbury Park there were occasions where a Welwyn Garden City service from Moorgate came in and was half empty so I used that rather than wait for the fast from Kings Cross on the grounds I definitely had a seat for the journey.

 

[cle]

If you've just missed the fast, you might just jump on the slow, versus waiting in the cold/a rubbish station - especially as you could do work on the train or watch something. Frequency might not be amazing, with marginal difference in arrival time. Or you don't know when the next fastest train is, you just jump on.

Everyone has their reasons...

 

[AM9]

Which passengers would ever choose to use slower services overtaken by fast services (other than people unfamiliar with the service accidentally getting the slow service as it terminates where they want to go)?

My wife sometimes travels to City Thameslink and usually gets the St Albans slow starter. 38 mins with a seat vs. 30 mins packed and maybe no seat isn't necessarily going to go to the fastest at any cost.