Fixing Thameslink

[A0]

But not on the level, it can be done by the flyover.

That's a messy move because it means sending it out of P3 or 4, over the flyover and then reversing on the up slow back into P1.

I assume the up slow is bi-directional to allow that move ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

As a user, I already regularly see the snow ball impacts of even a 2 minute delay at Welwyn Garden City (on any service) as these rapidly snowball.

I do remember a period where the Welwyn Garden City / Hertford services were every 20 minutes, providing a service from Alexandra Palace to Moorgate every 10 minutes. That worked but most trains were 3 coaches. The 2018 failed timetable moved them for a short period to every 15 minutes on both routes. Looking at the May timetable they have fixed the timetable and it is a real 15 minutes service from Moorgate - Alexandra Palace (I think it was 10 / 20 / 10 / 20 previously). I agree this should be satisfactory with the current loadings.

I think it was originally every 20 mins when the electric service was launched in the 1970s - it was sometime in the early 80s it went to every 30 mins - I don't recall it being every 20 after that (though if it happened after 2000 I wouldn't as I was no longer in the area).

 

[Failed Unit]

But not on the level, it can be done by the flyover.

They do that now, but it interesting how that seems to hit the delay minutes at times. The empty stock often needs to wait for the Moorgate service to arrive before it starts its reverse. So all platforms are blocked northbound at WGC. But I am sure someone will know why they do the reverse over the bridge rather then use the carriage sidings. As a passenger I like the fact the Sevenoaks often starts from platform 1 as it is in and waiting well ahead of departure. When they come from the sidings there is normally a delay as it seems to take ages from the northbound Cambridge leaving to the empty stock arriving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

That's a messy move because it means sending it out of P3 or 4, over the flyover and then reversing on the up slow back into P1.

I assume the up slow is bi-directional to allow that move ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==



I think it was originally every 20 mins when the electric service was launched in the 1970s - it was sometime in the early 80s it went to every 30 mins - I don't recall it being every 20 after that (though if it happened after 2000 I wouldn't as I was no longer in the area).

It was 20 minutes in the early privatisation years until about 2020. I can't recall exactly when it started late 1990s is possible, but early 2000s is also possible. Sure it was introduced under Prism's watch.

 

[JonathanH]

The London Bridge-Epsom semi fasts are a post COVID innovation and I think there is potential for them to run through the core.

They have been running since May 2018. The more recent innovation has been interworking them with the Caterham / Tattenham services at London Bridge.

 

[Magdalia]

That's a messy move because it means sending it out of P3 or 4, over the flyover and then reversing on the up slow back into P1.

I assume the up slow is bi-directional to allow that move ?

No. There is a separate line, adjacent to the up slow, that runs from the reversing siding into platform 1. There is no conflict with up trains.

I think it was originally every 20 mins when the electric service was launched in the 1970s - it was sometime in the early 80s it went to every 30 mins - I don't recall it being every 20 after that (though if it happened after 2000 I wouldn't as I was no longer in the area).

It was 20 minutes in the early privatisation years until about 2020. I can't recall exactly when it started late 1990s is possible, but early 2000s is also possible. Sure it was introduced under Prism's watch.

My BR timetable library says the off peak reduction from 3tph to 2tph was in 1987.

My WAGN timetable library only has the outer suburban services up to 2001, the inner suburban was in a separate book. These were combined in 2002 and that has off peak at 3tph.

They have been running since May 2018. The more recent innovation has been interworking them with the Caterham / Tattenham services at London Bridge.

Thanks. They have only come onto my radar since the recent changes, particularly the retiming of the Victoria-Dorking/Horsham service.

 

[SE%Traveller]

I wonder if the political fire from the Sutton Loop intervention has subsided enough to try it again. And send everything from the Denmark Hill side through, at all times - and 4tph Catford up to St Albans/Luton per current loopers.

Whilst any such change would be controversial you'd have thought that a service limited to Blackfriars and operated from the South would be a lot more reliable than the current one through to St Albans which is, as i understand it, ran by drivers depoted exclusively north of the river. In times of disruption the St Albans Stoppers are often canned leaving nothing on the Sutton loop at all. At least with trains from the Catford Loop in times of disruption during the peak Thameslink are rather better at running the Catfords in and out of the bays so still providing the service south of the river whilst easing pressure on the core.

it would be much easier I'd have thought to run all Catford/ Sutton trains from the the bays in times of disruption if you make the change you suggest, though possibly at the expense of the Beckenham Junction Peak

 

[cle]

Whilst any such change would be controversial you'd have thought that a service limited to Blackfriars and operated from the South would be a lot more reliable than the current one through to St Albans which is, as i understand it, ran by drivers depoted exclusively north of the river. In times of disruption the St Albans Stoppers are often canned leaving nothing on the Sutton loop at all. At least with trains from the Catford Loop in times of disruption during the peak Thameslink are rather better at running the Catfords in and out of the bays so still providing the service south of the river whilst easing pressure on the core.

it would be much easier I'd have thought to run all Catford/ Sutton trains from the the bays in times of disruption if you make the change you suggest, though possibly at the expense of the Beckenham Junction Peak

I think that is fine to lose those peaks. Those peak extras aren't a real service, the Maidstone/Ashford/Rochester ones were cut (now somewhat back) without much fuss. Now there is a Dartford coming! Fairly arbitrary.

And yes to the reliability of the Loop. Wasn't 8tph planned (I don't know how good this would be at Wimbledon itself) - as a sop? But maybe it could stand up 1-2 tph extra in the peaks.

If Catford also ran from the bays, you'd have much fewer through the core. Only LB trains - and we can't really add to those due to Windmill, unless they could cleanly take over SN slow services instead via Sydenham.

 

[SE%Traveller]

Oh i didn't mean to drop the off-peak frequency through the core, just switch the St Albans to run Sevenoaks/ Orpington instead of Sutton. But in times of disruption you could run them out of the bays as the service recovers.

 

[bramling]

No. There is a separate line, adjacent to the up slow, that runs from the reversing siding into platform 1. There is no conflict with up trains.




My BR timetable library says the off peak reduction from 3tph to 2tph was in 1987.

My WAGN timetable library only has the outer suburban services up to 2001, the inner suburban was in a separate book. These were combined in 2002 and that has off peak at 3tph.


Thanks. They have only come onto my radar since the recent changes, particularly the retiming of the Victoria-Dorking/Horsham service.

The 3tph was definitely introduced during the original Prism WAGN franchise. It was roughly about the same time as the outer suburban pattern was standardised.

The inners became 3tph to Hertford and Welwyn, with 1tph continuing to Stevenage. On weekends however 2tph was retained, but for a time the stock was changed to 317s therefore uplifting capacity slightly. The latter idea didn’t last long.

 

[cle]

Oh i didn't mean to drop the off-peak frequency through the core, just switch the St Albans to run Sevenoaks/ Orpington instead of Sutton. But in times of disruption you could run them out of the bays as the service recovers.

Ah ok, yes then I agree.

I would love for a turnback to be built somewhere south of Elephant, which could turn a core service of 2tph - or even 4tph if needed. It's very hard to find homes for them.

The LB-Epsom is really a remnant of the old West Croydon-Guildford service (which ran to LB in the peaks a few times) - itself born from an old Thameslink service. So it feels right to bring it back into the network, and it should be able to fit. And ending at Epsom means hopefully it won't be as susceptible to delays as others. Arguably taking over the Epsom Downs route entirely might keep it neater, but with less use.

 

[PGAT]

London Bridge to Epsom should be extended beyond to Dorking or Guildford, especially after the loss of their semi-fast Victoria services.

 

[Wolfie]

The original intention was to run the Cambridge stoppers through the core to and from Maidstone.

But it was always an impractical proposal that betrayed a lack of understanding of ECML operation through the 2 track section at Welwyn. For resilience reasons it is absolutely essential that trains calling at Welwyn North do not go through the core.

It has taken a long time but it does now seem that Cambridge-Maidstone is finally buried, and Cambridge-Kings Cross is going back to Great Northern. This is what politicians call a victory for common sense!

It might (f it didn't involve spending money which DfT/HMT are unlikely to approve) not be a bad idea to put the 379s (or a real wildcard, the 350/2s) on KX to Cambridge and free up some 700s for possible Thameslink enhancements.

 

[bramling]

It might (f it didn't involve spending money which DfT/HMT are unlikely to approve) not be a bad idea to put the 379s (or a real wildcard, the 350/2s) on KX to Cambridge and free up some 700s for possible Thameslink enhancements.

It seems that a good proportion of these services are going to be covered by 387s, albeit with some having been freed up by a 700/1 covering one of the peak Peterborough services (I might be misremembering but I think there’s a 700/0 on one of the other peak Peterborough diagrams as well).

But yes some form of extra Electrostars to GN could certainly free up some 700s if done in the right way.

 

[A0]

The 3tph was definitely introduced during the original Prism WAGN franchise. It was roughly about the same time as the outer suburban pattern was standardised.

The inners became 3tph to Hertford and Welwyn, with 1tph continuing to Stevenage. On weekends however 2tph was retained, but for a time the stock was changed to 317s therefore uplifting capacity slightly. The latter idea didn’t last long.

I thought the use of 317s at weekends was possible because the inners didn't run into Moorgate at the weekends, so dual voltage stock wasn't needed.

 

[cle]

London Bridge to Epsom should be extended beyond to Dorking or Guildford, especially after the loss of their semi-fast Victoria services.

I like the idea of Dorking - as terminating at Epsom is a little busy. Better yet, it could reconnect with Thameslink back at Horsham...and cut the Victoria back to Dorking. I doubt much synergy but maybe some interworking possible.

 

[bramling]

I thought the use of 317s at weekends was possible because the inners didn't run into Moorgate at the weekends, so dual voltage stock wasn't needed.

The latter is correct, however substituting 317s was a conscious decision made by WAGN to provide a capacity increase, this was stated by them at the time.

It didn’t last, within a couple of timetables 313s were back. I’m not sure if that was to provide further capacity by going up to 6 cars, or because someone realised it was wasteful having a fleet of 42 units sat idle for two days out of seven. In the event by the time of withdrawal the 313 fleet went to the other extreme, with the May 18 timetable hammering the fleet.

 

[43074]

The London Bridge-Epsom semi fasts are a post COVID innovation and I think there is potential for them to run through the core.

These ran from May 2018.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

But it was always an impractical proposal that betrayed a lack of understanding of ECML operation through the 2 track section at Welwyn. For resilience reasons it is absolutely essential that trains calling at Welwyn North do not go through the core.

I don't think there's any reason particularly why this is the case. Maidstone to Cambridge didn't work on the Kent side, the 2 track section through Welwyn wasn't the problem.

 

[London Trains]

London Bridge to Epsom should be extended beyond to Dorking or Guildford, especially after the loss of their semi-fast Victoria services.

Extending them to Guildford would be ideal, it creates all sorts of new links, and SWR could then run all of their services via Epsom to Dorking, adding needed capacity there (and if CR2 ever happens then fully taking over the line via Worcester Park and having 4/6tph to Dorking is ideal). Only Bookham would lose its link to Waterloo since the other stations have services via Cobham.

 

[bramling]

I don't think there's any reason particularly why this is the case. Maidstone to Cambridge didn't work on the Kent side, the 2 track section through Welwyn wasn't the problem.

Kent was a problem from a planning point of view. Welwyn could certainly be made to work on paper, but the general view is that it would highly likely be a problem in practice, and even more so Hitchin-Cambridge.

It seems to suit everyone that Maidstone-Cambridge has been quietly forgotten, not least because it isn’t clear how the required number of 700/0s would have been provided. Pre-Covid the fleet already seemed stretched.

 

[Magdalia]

Welwyn could certainly be made to work on paper, but the general view is that it would highly likely be a problem in practice, and even more so Hitchin-Cambridge.

The people who thought that Welwyn wasn't a problem were people who didn't have day by day experience of GN commuting, and had not watched large chunks of their lives slipping through their fingers while sat in queues of trains waiting to go through the 2 track section. If I could have £1 for every minute that I've sat at K617, K619, K630 and K632 I would be very rich!

I was slightly less bothered about Hitchin-Cambridge, because of the Royston overtaking option, but that has fallen out of favour since 2018.

 

[43074]

The most problematic TL service on the GN side is arguably Welwyn to Sevenoaks at the moment - overtaking Moorgate services between Ally Pally and Finsbury Park in both directions is messy to say the least and resulted in a remedial solution skipping Harringay and Hornsey on the Welwyn to Moorgate services being implemented about a month after the Sevenoaks was introduced.

The biggest issue with Peterborough to Horsham is covering it with drivers day to day, and it doesn't recover from delays well. Control seem to rely on running non stop between Stevenage and Peterborough (and equally bypassing Redhill on the south side) to make up time. Traincrew route knowledge is fairly restrictive these days too, addressing that would go a long way to improve resilience across TL and GN as a whole.

 

[bramling]

The most problematic TL service on the GN side is arguably Welwyn to Sevenoaks at the moment - overtaking Moorgate services between Ally Pally and Finsbury Park in both directions is messy to say the least and resulted in a remedial solution skipping Harringay and Hornsey on the Welwyn to Moorgate services being implemented about a month after the Sevenoaks was introduced.

To be fair this is more because Welwyn-Sevenoaks is interacting with the Moorgate service in a way which wasn’t envisaged, because the Moorgate service that runs today is the slimmed-down post-Covid timetable, not the timetable which was was designed for May 18. That said, the Alexandra Palace to Finsbury Park section would still be a bottleneck.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2023 ==

The people who thought that Welwyn wasn't a problem were people who didn't have day by day experience of GN commuting, and had not watched large chunks of their lives slipping through their fingers while sat in queues of trains waiting to go through the 2 track section. If I could have £1 for every minute that I've sat at K617, K619, K630 and K632 I would be very rich!

I was slightly less bothered about Hitchin-Cambridge, because of the Royston overtaking option, but that has fallen out of favour since 2018.

In my case I spent as much time at K687 (on the down approaching Hitchin) as the various Welwyn signals! Hitchin is another bottleneck which many people forget or aren’t aware of. The flyover helped a little, but didn’t totally remove the bottleneck of two platforms, and of course did nothing for the up direction. As with elsewhere, it all works when everything presents itself on time, and doesn’t when it doesn’t.

 

[Bald Rick]

The flyover helped a little, but didn’t totally remove the bottleneck of two platforms, and of course did nothing for the up direction.

It certainly did plenty for the up direction - for trains coming from the Peterborough direction!

 

[Failed Unit]

Kent was a problem from a planning point of view. Welwyn could certainly be made to work on paper, but the general view is that it would highly likely be a problem in practice, and even more so Hitchin-Cambridge.

It seems to suit everyone that Maidstone-Cambridge has been quietly forgotten, not least because it isn’t clear how the required number of 700/0s would have been provided. Pre-Covid the fleet already seemed stretched.

I have noticed this week the number of services cancelled because of ”More trains needing repairs at the same time”. 387s subs as well. The DfT spec of for the 700 MTBF isn’t as good as they planned. I wonder if Siemens are losing sleep over this?

 

[Mikey C]

I've noticed more graffitti on 700s recently, not just on the outside of the units and insode thr toilets but inside the train. Never saw this sort of thing on the 365s!

I'm a long term critic of the ironing board seats on the 700s but to be fair the trains are excellent at hoovering up passengers. Just last Sunday I boarded the 09:26 from Stevenage to Kings Cross, a 12-car 700 that was full and standing, with many Newcastle United supporters among the normal passengers travelling. Pre-12-car 700 introduction people would have been left behind but this isn't the case with the any longer.

Wednesday evening I took the 22:38 from Finsbury Park to Stevenage. A school boy error by me as I didn't realise Arsenal were playing that evening and this train was a perfect train for supporters heading home. A packed platform but we all got on the 8-car 700 with ease. Again this wouldn't have happened with the previous trains.

I was on a heavily graffitied unit today, mainly on the outside, but also with some squiggles inside. An 8 car I think.

Is the fleet so intensively used that they couldn't take it out of service to remove this? I don't recall trains with graffiti inside being in operation elsewhere

 

[bramling]

They do that now, but it interesting how that seems to hit the delay minutes at times. The empty stock often needs to wait for the Moorgate service to arrive before it starts its reverse. So all platforms are blocked northbound at WGC. But I am sure someone will know why they do the reverse over the bridge rather then use the carriage sidings.

The only obvious things I can think of are platform clashes, or simply that it clashes with other stuff coming out of the sidings enough that the margins can’t be made to work. Remember that the sidings themselves are unsignalled and worked by a shunter, so getting trains in or out is a fairly involved process.

The use of platform 1 for the Sevenoaks services seems to have come in fairly recently, the original May 18 timetable didn’t have it. So it would seem to be someone’s attempt at tinkering to make things work better.

 

[LBMPSB]

Kent was a problem from a planning point of view. Welwyn could certainly be made to work on paper, but the general view is that it would highly likely be a problem in practice, and even more so Hitchin-Cambridge.

It seems to suit everyone that Maidstone-Cambridge has been quietly forgotten, not least because it isn’t clear how the required number of 700/0s would have been provided. Pre-Covid the fleet already seemed stretched.

I am not so sure that the Cambridge/Maidstone East service is forgotten. Interestingly, the recent Southeastern timetable has seen the re-emergence of the Maidstone East/Charing Cross services. These used to run many years ago as 1Axx (down) & 1Nxx(Up), today they run as 1Uxx which is interesting because the Cambridge/Maidstine East service are planned as 9Uxx. Maidstone East trains presently go through Edward Street junction at New Cross on the fast lines, to get on & off the Core lines would only require a crossover move at Edwards Street Junction (in the up, Up Fast to 3 Up then onto Southwark Reversible, then 5 Up on the Core Route.And in the down, 4 Down, Down Kent Fast) . This is a simple move that I as a Signaller do often with late running Cannon Street services, it is quick and simple to do. Pathing through the Core would be the only issue, Kent side isn't. We manage to signal four trains an hour (2 up, 2 down) crossing over lines 1, 2 & 3 at North Kent East Junction on and off the 4 Down & Southwark Reversible o 5 Up with no issues at all.

 

[PGAT]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there’s no chance Cambridge - Maidstone will come into fruition

 

[LBMPSB]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there’s no chance Cambridge - Maidstone will come into fruition

Based on what facts?

 

[PGAT]

Based on what facts?

I don't work at the railway, and I don't have access to inside intel. However, it's become really clear and obvious that this service is dead. In 2022 it was looking really promising when the Blackfriars - Maidstone East service was born. The only way diverting it to Charing Cross in December would make sense (keeping in mind that Charing Cross is more in line with SE's territory) is if ThamesLink were never going to end up arriving.

The final nail in the coffin is Great Northern taking over the King's Cross - Cambridge services, and that change looks permanent.

So, while there isn't any definitive evidence saying the service is dead, there are many clear signs that suggest it's not happening in the long run.