How far can we go in simplifying service patterns?

[miklcct]

Over these few years, we have seen that a lot of off-pattern trains being removed from the network, for example, GWR service to Brighton, Southern service to Guildford and Wimbledon loop, Thameslink service to Littlehampton, South Western Railway service to Bristol, etc. The recent Southeastern timetable change has also removed the number of service patterns, trying to give a consistent service all day. The latest Southern timetable consultation is also trying to do that on West Coastway, removing the number of patterns to give an even service (London trains will no longer go to Southampton, and Brighton trains will no longer go to Portsmouth), keeping the same number of trains serving a certain station.

Both London Underground and London Overground operate with a fixed service pattern and varies the frequency peak / off-peak. How far can this be done on the National Rail network, by removing the number of different routes operating on the same pair of tracks, such that the remaining routes can be operated with a more even frequency and more reliably?

For example
- Can we operate all Cambridge / Peterborough Thameslink trains through Redhill, and all Bedford Thameslink trains to Brighton, such that both service groups can operate at an even 15-minute headway south of the river, instead of the 10 / 20 minutes as seen now, and to reduce the effect of service disruption spreading across the river to multiple places?
- Can we simplify the Southeastern network further? For example, leaving only the Victoria service on the Bexleyheath line and run it every 15 minutes, forcing a change at Lewisham; leaving only the Cannon Street via Lewisham service on the Woolwich line (with Greenwich service provided by Thameslink running every 15 minutes as well) and run it every 15 minutes; and leaving only the Charing Cross service on the Sidcup line and run all via Lewisham, such that all 3 lines are assigned to each of the 3 main terminals all at turn-up-and-go frequency and can be interchanged at Lewisham, like 3 separate metro lines?

 

[SynthD]

No to your second example, because people don’t want that and Lewisham can’t cope.

Do you know the reasons for the current Thameslink timetable and whether your changes are compatible with all that it interfaces with? The Thameslink timetable is the Chesterton’s fence of the rail world.

 

[Snow1964]

There is some irony in simplification schemes, firstly it sometimes gives excess capacity to a route trains diverted on (eg jumps from 2 trains an hour to hour, but passenger numbers don't move anything like 100%.

Secondly, the more planning is computerised which should allow it to get more complicated, ends up being simplified instead. Oddly the old way with graph paper and slide rules often allowed paths to be be spotted more easily for more creative workings to help passengers avoid changes.

 

[miklcct]

No to your second example, because people don’t want that and Lewisham can’t cope.

But now people are complaining about the long gaps on the Bexleyheath line.

Having no changes everywhere and an even service frequency are mathematically incompatible on a shared-track railway. If there is a core, and two branches on each end, it is impossible to run an even service frequency on all branches with direct trains across all 4 combinations.

 

[PGAT]

- Can we simplify the Southeastern network further? For example, leaving only the Victoria service on the Bexleyheath line and run it every 15 minutes, forcing a change at Lewisham; leaving only the Cannon Street via Lewisham service on the Woolwich line (with Greenwich service provided by Thameslink running every 15 minutes as well) and run it every 15 minutes; and leaving only the Charing Cross service on the Sidcup line and run all via Lewisham, such that all 3 lines are assigned to each of the 3 main terminals all at turn-up-and-go frequency and can be interchanged at Lewisham, like 3 separate metro lines?

Couple of things here:

- 4tph Thameslink is out of the question, because of a lack of capacity on the Northern branches, and the fact that it will be impossible to path trains through North Kent East Jn and the Core at even timings.

- Uneven levels of crowding (eg Sidcup line will be the busiest by far as Charing Cross is the ideal terminus) which is a poor use of rolling stock

- Having to change deters a lot of people, especially if they have to do it everyday

- Capacity at Dartford is at a premium, and there are no circular trains, so where will some of the services even go?

 

[PTR 444]

Over these few years, we have seen that a lot of off-pattern trains being removed from the network, for example, GWR service to Brighton, Southern service to Guildford and Wimbledon loop, Thameslink service to Littlehampton, South Western Railway service to Bristol, etc. The recent Southeastern timetable change has also removed the number of service patterns, trying to give a consistent service all day. The latest Southern timetable consultation is also trying to do that on West Coastway, removing the number of patterns to give an even service (London trains will no longer go to Southampton, and Brighton trains will no longer go to Portsmouth), keeping the same number of trains serving a certain station.

Both London Underground and London Overground operate with a fixed service pattern and varies the frequency peak / off-peak. How far can this be done on the National Rail network, by removing the number of different routes operating on the same pair of tracks, such that the remaining routes can be operated with a more even frequency and more reliably?

For example
- Can we operate all Cambridge / Peterborough Thameslink trains through Redhill, and all Bedford Thameslink trains to Brighton, such that both service groups can operate at an even 15-minute headway south of the river, instead of the 10 / 20 minutes as seen now, and to reduce the effect of service disruption spreading across the river to multiple places?
- Can we simplify the Southeastern network further? For example, leaving only the Victoria service on the Bexleyheath line and run it every 15 minutes, forcing a change at Lewisham; leaving only the Cannon Street via Lewisham service on the Woolwich line (with Greenwich service provided by Thameslink running every 15 minutes as well) and run it every 15 minutes; and leaving only the Charing Cross service on the Sidcup line and run all via Lewisham, such that all 3 lines are assigned to each of the 3 main terminals all at turn-up-and-go frequency and can be interchanged at Lewisham, like 3 separate metro lines?

I think 2tph on specific corridors is fine, and would advocate for this approach across most of the UK network. The recent LNWR recast is an excellent example of how this can be implemented. An increase to 4tph on metro routes unless there is specific demand for it would just lead to uneven demand and overcrowding at platforms that aren’t designed for huge numbers of changing passengers.

 

[miklcct]

I think 2tph on specific corridors is fine, and would advocate for this approach across most of the UK network. The recent LNWR recast is an excellent example of how this can be implemented. An increase to 4tph on metro routes unless there is specific demand for it would just lead to uneven demand and overcrowding at platforms that aren’t designed for huge numbers of changing passengers.

TfL considers an average waiting time of 7.5 minutes or less turn-up-and-go, and an average waiting time of 5 minutes of less less metro frequency. In its "strategic case for metroisation" document, TfL has specifically mentioned that the poor Southeastern services has led to unnecessary demands on buses (pages 5 and 6).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2023 ==

This leads to many customers instead using local bus services to bypass their local rail station in favour of a more reliable Tube service.

This adds pressure on the Tube and bus networks in areas where they are already at capacity. For example:
 Each day 33 double-deck bus loads of Londoners living within a 10 minute walk of West Norwood station use a bus to access Brixton Tube station instead of using their local rail service.
 5,000 people travel by bus from, or past, stations on the Wimbledon Loop to access the Northern line at Morden.
 While the journey from Eltham to Southwark takes less time on a Southeastern service, taking a bus to the Jubilee line at North Greenwich is a quicker option when estimated wait time is factored in.

 

[Silenos]

TfL considers an average waiting time of 7.5 minutes or less turn-up-and-go, and an average waiting time of 5 minutes of less less metro frequency. In its "strategic case for metroisation" document, TfL has specifically mentioned that the poor Southeastern services has led to unnecessary demands on buses (pages 5 and 6).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2023 ==

Presumably that pressure on bus services will be exacerbated if the Bakerloo is extended to Lewisham.

 

[cle]

TfL considers an average waiting time of 7.5 minutes or less turn-up-and-go, and an average waiting time of 5 minutes of less less metro frequency. In its "strategic case for metroisation" document, TfL has specifically mentioned that the poor Southeastern services has led to unnecessary demands on buses (pages 5 and 6).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2023 ==

The Wimbledon loop should be 15min intervals (bays) to test that out. As for wait times, disingenuous for regular travellers as they use timetables and leave the house at the appropriate time, vs TUAHope.

Bakerloo to Lewisham - yes but if that reaches Hayes, that will open up paths both on the fasts (which could go to Sidcup line or to Orpington slow) and via Lewisham - and so benefit SE London and mitigate bad frequency/bus temptation. Before Hayes, agree it will make Lewisham more of a Brixton tube-head.

 

[30907]

TfL considers an average waiting time of 7.5 minutes or less turn-up-and-go, and an average waiting time of 5 minutes of less less metro frequency. In its "strategic case for metroisation" document, TfL has specifically mentioned that the poor Southeastern services has led to unnecessary demands on buses (pages 5 and 6).

Yes, South London suburban services should generally be every 15min (or better), as they were pre covid. How that could be done on the Wimbledon and Sutton is less obvious (London Br-Wimbledon was planned IIRC).

BTW f9r context: 33 busloads West Norwood-Brixton is around 2000 passengers, and the routes concerned have a combined frequency of about 24bph.

 

[PGAT]

The Wimbledon loop was practically never had 4tph, as the extra trains ran against the flow of peak direction.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, South London suburban services should generally be every 15min (or better), as they were pre covid. How that could be done on the Wimbledon and Sutton is less obvious (London Br-Wimbledon was planned IIRC).

That was to have been 2 tph (peaks only) London Bridge to Blackfriars via Sutton and Wimbledon, giving 4 tph each way round the loop when combined with the existing Thameslink. I always wondered how reliable that could be through the single platform at Wimbledon.

 

[Grecian 1998]

There would probably be some operational convenience and therefore improved reliability in running all XC Voyager routes as Plymouth / Bristol - Newcastle / Edinburgh and Bournemouth / Reading - Manchester. This would keep both sets of services on one side of New Street (SW - NE on the south side between platforms 7 - 12, SC - NW on the north side between platforms 1 - 6, unless using the line through Solihull creates an issue). Manchester - Bristol services usually have to use the Camp Hill route to avoid clogging up multiple lines moving from the northernmost line coming from Wolverhampton to the southernmost line heading to Bristol.

Whether or not XC users would welcome the severing of direct services between SW - NW and SC - NE and whether this would have a knock-on effect on other users is of course another matter. The popularity of split tickets on XC routes as a cost-saving method makes it difficult to tell how many longer distance travellers there are.

 

[mangyiscute]

Unfortunately, a lot of people way prefer direct trains/routes with fewest changes for various reasons, so I don't think this sort of simplification is necessarily good for the railways, since some people will be put off taking the train if their previously direct journey now involves a change.
I would like to see more lines adopt a clockface timetable tho, having the train leave at the exact same minutes past each hour is very useful for passengers and makes it easy to remember when the train is, often lines have random 1 or 2 minute differences which can make it a lot more confusing.

 

[miklcct]

Unfortunately, a lot of people way prefer direct trains/routes with fewest changes for various reasons, so I don't think this sort of simplification is necessarily good for the railways, since some people will be put off taking the train if their previously direct journey now involves a change.

Unfortunately this has resulted the retention of Sutton loop through train service through the core, preventing the Thameslink achieving its full potential by running 24 tph 12-car trains, and the crossing of lines between Blackfriars and Loughborough Junction becomes a bottleneck of the system.

The original plan was to terminate all the Sutton loop service at Blackfriars, eliminating a major conflicting move, and to increase the loop frequency to 4 tph.

I am trying to make a journey from Cheam back to West Hampstead and, with the current configuration, the journey is so stressful because there are basically 4 routes out of Sutton (via Wimbledon to St Albans, via Mitcham to Victoria, via Mitcham to St Albans, via Norwood Junction to London Bridge) with all of them running half-hourly, and there are so many possible routes afterwards, if I choose the wrong connection I will lose a lot of time. Instead, if the routes are simplified, and the TfL-proposed Streatham Common Interchange is built, I can just take any frequent train to Streatham Common no matter the destination, and continue on the next train along the most direct geographical route (taking the speed into consideration), until I reach the destination.

 

[30907]

That was to have been 2 tph (peaks only) London Bridge to Blackfriars via Sutton and Wimbledon, giving 4 tph each way round the loop when combined with the existing Thameslink. I always wondered how reliable that could be through the single platform at Wimbledon.

My suggestion would now be Victoria to Blackfriars, allowing the Dorking line to be sped up. ISTR evicting Tramlink at WIM was part of the deal

Unfortunately, a lot of people way prefer direct trains/routes with fewest changes for various reasons, so I don't think this sort of simplification is necessarily good for the railways, since some people will be put off taking the train if their previously direct journey now involves a change.

The OP's point is valid for suburban and perhaps interchange routes, but not for longer journeys like Bristol-Sheffield and hourly or even half- hourly frequency.

 

[Magdalia]

Both London Underground and London Overground operate with a fixed service pattern and varies the frequency peak / off-peak. How far can this be done on the National Rail network, by removing the number of different routes operating on the same pair of tracks, such that the remaining routes can be operated with a more even frequency and more reliably?

Not very much. To take the various South London examples, most have alternative services to the City and the West End, either Cannon Street/Charing Cross or London Bridge/Victoria. Note that the Northern Line does this too, it doesn't just do High Barnet via Bank and Edgware via Charing Cross or vice versa. In London fixed service patterns work much better on east-west routes that can serve the City and the West End on the same trains.

There would probably be some operational convenience and therefore improved reliability in running all XC Voyager routes as Plymouth / Bristol - Newcastle / Edinburgh and Bournemouth / Reading - Manchester. This would keep both sets of services on one side of New Street (SW - NE on the south side between platforms 7 - 12, SC - NW on the north side between platforms 1 - 6, unless using the line through Solihull creates an issue). Manchester - Bristol services usually have to use the Camp Hill route to avoid clogging up multiple lines moving from the northernmost line coming from Wolverhampton to the southernmost line heading to Bristol.

Over longer distances and with lower frequencies it is important to provide through services, changing trains is a significant deterrent for long distance journeys. The 1970s cross country timetable (Table 51) is a great example of how to provide regular intervals and varying destinations at the same time, though that would be difficult to replicate now on a much more intensively used railway.

A classic example of where simplification has gone too far is the cross country services to and from East Anglia which results in no through services between Norwich and Leicester/Birmingham and no through services between Cambridge and Nottingham/Sheffield.

 

[hux385]

I also wonder whether simplification of stopping patterns would achieve greater capacity/reliability? For example, would running every train as semi-fast rather than having seperate fast and stopper services be feasible? Obviously this is not always possible, and it would slow down services for some people who would have previously caught fast services, but on the other hand, there would be fewer issues with fast trains getting caught behind stoppers. Thoughts?

 

[miklcct]

I also wonder whether simplification of stopping patterns would achieve greater capacity/reliability? For example, would running every train as semi-fast rather than having seperate fast and stopper services be feasible? Obviously this is not always possible, and it would slow down services for some people who would have previously caught fast services, but on the other hand, there would be fewer issues with fast trains getting caught behind stoppers. Thoughts?

Running all trains as semi-fast may hamper local connectivity. If one train skips A and the other train skips the next station B, then an A-B one stop journey becomes impossible.

 

[mangyiscute]

I think the main issue is that say if you have trains from A to F with B,C,D,E between, if you run say one service which stops at B and D and the other one stops at C and E then anyone travelling say from B to E doesn't have a train they can take. Therefore, you sort of need an all stations stopper on most lines to provide a service between the intermediate stations - say LNERs 2 hourly all stopper to York.

 

[Magdalia]

I also wonder whether simplification of stopping patterns would achieve greater capacity/reliability? For example, would running every train as semi-fast rather than having seperate fast and stopper services be feasible? Obviously this is not always possible, and it would slow down services for some people who would have previously caught fast services, but on the other hand, there would be fewer issues with fast trains getting caught behind stoppers. Thoughts?

I think the main issue is that say if you have trains from A to F with B,C,D,E between, if you run say one service which stops at B and D and the other one stops at C and E then anyone travelling say from B to E doesn't have a train they can take. Therefore, you sort of need an all stations stopper on most lines to provide a service between the intermediate stations - say LNERs 2 hourly all stopper to York.

An example where this was done is between Cambridge and Bishops Stortford for a while in the 1980s. Alternate trains ran fast Cambridge-Audley End and Audley End-Bishops Stortford. Whittlesford-Elsenham, for example, could still be done, but with an hour to wait at Audley End.

 

[boiledbeans2]

I am trying to make a journey from Cheam back to West Hampstead and, with the current configuration, the journey is so stressful because there are basically 4 routes out of Sutton (via Wimbledon to St Albans, via Mitcham to Victoria, via Mitcham to St Albans, via Norwood Junction to London Bridge) with all of them running half-hourly, and there are so many possible routes afterwards, if I choose the wrong connection I will lose a lot of time.

Isn't it good that there are many options? I find it very easy travelling around Central London. If one tube line is disrupted in Central London, there is usually another tube line (although it may involve additional changes) which can get me to my destination.

You could always follow the NR planner or Google Maps to decide which is the fastest journey among the 4 available.

 

[mangyiscute]

Yeah most people will just look up on a journey planner and take whatever route it says, they wont think about it any more. More choice of routes is certainly a good thing

 

[Roger1973]

As with most things in life, it's a case of striking a balance.

You will never get a public transport network that can have every possible combination of stops / stations having a direct service between them, but I think too many people (including those involved in planning public transport services) tend to under-estimate how off-putting it can be to have to change buses / trains, especially if you're any combination of elderly, infirm, disabled, travelling with luggage or small children, or unfamiliar with the journey.

 

[Starmill]

Thameslink achieving its full potential by running 24 tph 12-car trains, and the crossing of lines between Blackfriars and Loughborough Junction becomes a bottleneck of the system.

There isn't sufficient demand for that anyway.

It's far, far too expensive for those who would travel many times per week to ever grow to that scale. It's also an incredibly basic, spartan service for those who would only travel occasionally, the trains are very unattractive to spend more than a few minutes on.

It doesn't have a market.

 

[Magdalia]

There isn't sufficient demand for that anyway.

It's far, far too expensive for those who would travel many times per week to ever grow to that scale. It's also an incredibly basic, spartan service for those who would only travel occasionally, the trains are very unattractive to spend more than a few minutes on.

It doesn't have a market.

Thameslink does have a market and it is a very big one. It is by far the easiest, most convenient and most comfortable way to make journeys that cross the River Thames in the London area.

I visit the London area roughly weekly from the Fens and more than half of my journeys are on Thameslink because of the connectivity it provides to destinations south of the river. Some of these journeys involve me travelling from Cambridge to London Bridge, which takes about 80 minutes; sitting in a class 700 for that long is not a problem and no more uncomfortable than the alternative classes 387 or class 720. The number of other passengers using the Brighton trains to/from Cambridge are an indication that there is a demand that is not deterred by the trains provided.

But demand for Thameslink as a whole is not as high as anticipated when the 2018 Thameslink upgrade was being planned, and I agree that it is unlikely that we will ever see peak 24tph through the core. I'm pleased about this because, going right back to when the Canal Tunnel was first proposed, I've regarded 20tph as the maximum that can be delivered in a robust and resilient way. Thameslink will also be more robust and resilient if the service pattern errs on the side of simplicity but that is much easier to do on the north side of the river than the south side, and that's already been covered in other discussions on the forum.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Over these few years, we have seen that a lot of off-pattern trains being removed from the network, for example, GWR service to Brighton, Southern service to Guildford and Wimbledon loop, Thameslink service to Littlehampton, South Western Railway service to Bristol, etc. The recent Southeastern timetable change has also removed the number of service patterns, trying to give a consistent service all day. The latest Southern timetable consultation is also trying to do that on West Coastway, removing the number of patterns to give an even service (London trains will no longer go to Southampton, and Brighton trains will no longer go to Portsmouth), keeping the same number of trains serving a certain station.

Both London Underground and London Overground operate with a fixed service pattern and varies the frequency peak / off-peak. How far can this be done on the National Rail network, by removing the number of different routes operating on the same pair of tracks, such that the remaining routes can be operated with a more even frequency and more reliably?

For example
- Can we operate all Cambridge / Peterborough Thameslink trains through Redhill, and all Bedford Thameslink trains to Brighton, such that both service groups can operate at an even 15-minute headway south of the river, instead of the 10 / 20 minutes as seen now, and to reduce the effect of service disruption spreading across the river to multiple places?
- Can we simplify the Southeastern network further? For example, leaving only the Victoria service on the Bexleyheath line and run it every 15 minutes, forcing a change at Lewisham; leaving only the Cannon Street via Lewisham service on the Woolwich line (with Greenwich service provided by Thameslink running every 15 minutes as well) and run it every 15 minutes; and leaving only the Charing Cross service on the Sidcup line and run all via Lewisham, such that all 3 lines are assigned to each of the 3 main terminals all at turn-up-and-go frequency and can be interchanged at Lewisham, like 3 separate metro lines?

Route simplification on SE hasn’t worked all that well, rush hour at London Bridge people are crowded round the stairs and lift to head to Charing Cross platforms, which can take a few minutes to clear, then it’s having to wait a few more minutes to get a Charing Cross train because you’ve had to let one or two go due to overcrowding.

This has lead to customers on the Woolwich & Bexleyheath lines to abandon SE completely, the timetable is a mess and has been since December, off peak very few want Cannon Street, and with the DLR in SE London, this has largely replaced Cannon Street, add that to Liverpool Street being in a much better and livelier part of the city via the Elizabeth line, Cannon Street trains are now largely empty off peak.

You’ll never get 4tph Thameslink via Greenwich, not without impacting the other Thameslink routes, in truth the Thameslink should never have ran via Greenwich but via Lewisham then onto Woolwich and beyond instead.

4tph has been mooted for Victoria to Lewisham, unsure the other 2tph will go but the existing 2tph I assume will continue to serve Bexleyheath.

 

[Starmill]

Thameslink does have a market and it is a very big one. It is by far the easiest, most convenient and most comfortable way to make journeys that cross the River Thames in the London area.

It doesn't have a market to carry about twice the number of people it does today. Which is what @miklcct is suggesting.

If it did it would already be running close to capacity, and it's not...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

Cambridge to London Bridge, which takes about 80 minutes; sitting in a class 700 for that long is not a problem

Most additional users will not be sitting as the trains have so few seats. The vacant capacity is mostly in standing spaces.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

The number of other passengers using the Brighton trains to/from Cambridge are an indication that there is a demand that is not deterred by the trains provided.

This is obviously not true. People generally don't get to choose train types. They use the service on the rolling stock provided, or they don't. You're making the classic error of only looking at people who are using the rail service, and ignoring everyone who isn't. It's the latter group who would drive growth. Indeed one could argue this blind spot is the whole reason for the current pan-industry decline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

I've regarded 20tph as the maximum that can be delivered in a robust and resilient way

Again, even 20tph with twelve car sets is vast over-capacity against current demand. That's very unlikely to be changing any time soon.

 

[Magdalia]

This is obviously not true. People generally don't get to choose train types.

From Cambridge to London there is a choice of three train types. People can choose if they are bothered. Most are not.

You're making the classic error of only looking at people who are using the rail service, and ignoring everyone who isn't. It's the latter group who would drive growth.

I talk about trains to a lot of people who do not use them. Rolling stock is not what deters them, most haven't been on a train for years and have no idea what any modern rolling stock is like. What deters them is price, unreliability and inconvenience.

And there's a trade off between unreliability and inconvenience, which is what this discussion is about. A simplified service is more reliable but less convenient.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

Most additional users will not be sitting as the trains have so few seats. The vacant capacity is mostly in standing spaces.

But only in the peaks and in or near the core. The people who I see standing on Thameslink trains, outside of peak time and the core, are standing because they want to, and could sit down if they preferred. Two of the great features of class 700s are the car by car loading information and the wide aisles that allow people to move within the train to get to where there are seats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2023 ==

Again, even 20tph with twelve car sets is vast over-capacity against current demand.

But we both know that is not going to happen, because only about half of the class 700 fleet are 12 car trains. But, given time, Thameslink will get to 20tph in the peak with a mix of 12 car and 8 car trains.

 

[Starmill]

From Cambridge to London there is a choice of three train types. People can choose if they are bothered. Most are not.

No, they choose based on price and journey times. Not train types. In general only one type works each service by price and journey time. It's very rare for a different train type to work each of the three options.

In any case you haven't presented any evidence people don't prefer the fast services because they have tables and charging sockets, for example. You don't know that this isn't a factor at play. Also I was talking about the whole Thameslink service. Cambridge and the stations between Stevenage and Cambridge are very small slice of the market travelling through the core.

I talk about trains to a lot of people who do not use them. Rolling stock is not what deters them, most haven't been on a train for years and have no idea what any modern rolling stock is like. What deters them is price, unreliability and inconvenience.

That's certainly true. The very, very high prices are a key reason why more people won't return to using Thameslink at peak times, as I have said already several times. More frequent trains won't be necessary for the foreseeable future, unless prices are significantly reduced and the service is made more attractive in other ways.

But only in the peaks and in or near the core. The people who I see standing on Thameslink trains, outside of peak time and the core, are standing because they want to, and could sit down if they preferred. Two of the great features of class 700s are the car by car loading information and the wide aisles that allow people to move within the train to get to where there are seats.

So you admit that the number of seats provided is small in relation to the number of people who can hypothetically travel on the train? Which is the whole point I was making there.

But we both know that is not going to happen

Certainly there's no chance of it happening. That's precisely what I said, in response to a claim it should. If it did, the trains would be running at even worse load factors than today, and costs would be much higher. So what's your issue?

But, given time, Thameslink will get to 20tph in the peak with a mix of 12 car and 8 car trains.

It may well do, though not at capacity and certainly not soon. However that'd still be far short of 24tph with twelve car trains, which is the claim I was refuting.