Odd Thameslink move at London Bridge Lunchtime 20/03

[Minstral25]

Really odd today - I was on 9R23 (Three Bridges - Bedford) heading into London at London Bridge and noticed a parallel Thameslink Train going through platform 8 non-stop, it was 9S26 (Brighton to Cambridge). We were signalled to a stop just after London Bridge to let it cross and go up to Blackfriars.

It was unusual to see a Thameslink train go through the SouthEastern platforms (although obviously they can), especially with the call at London Bridge cancelled as it didn't stop but otherwise normal service along route. Checked later and it appears 9J32 and 9T24 also did the same.

Do not really understand why those three were diverted but our train went through normal Thameslink Platform at same time? Can anyone enlighten?

 

[Magdalia]

Looking at Real Time Trains the issue appears to have been with 9R28 1126 Gatwick-Bedford which was blocking the northbound Thameslink line somewhere between New Cross Gate and London Bridge.

Realtime Trains | 9R28 1126 Three Bridges to Bedford | 20/03/2024

Real-time train running information for 9R28 1126 departure from Three Bridges to Bedford on 20/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

9R28 1126 Three Bridges to Bedford

 

[LBMPSB]

Really odd today - I was on 9R23 (Three Bridges - Bedford) heading into London at London Bridge and noticed a parallel Thameslink Train going through platform 8 non-stop, it was 9S26 (Brighton to Cambridge). We were signalled to a stop just after London Bridge to let it cross and go up to Blackfriars.

It was unusual to see a Thameslink train go through the SouthEastern platforms (although obviously they can), especially with the call at London Bridge cancelled as it didn't stop but otherwise normal service along route. Checked later and it appears 9J32 and 9T24 also did the same.

Do not really understand why those three were diverted but our train went through normal Thameslink Platform at same time? Can anyone enlighten?

Maybe there was a issue with a previous train ahead of you that cleared as you got there, and the other trains had already be committed to diversion. A train blocking the line between New Cross Gate and London Bridge on the Up Sussex Fast/ No 5 Up line will mean either the following Thameslink trains sit and queue on the Up Sussex Fast between New Cross Gate and Norwood or, they get diverted towards the London Bridge via the Bermondsey reversibles and get crossed over to No 8 Up line and run through Platform 8 or 9 at London Bridge. Thameslink, do not allow their trains to call at London Bridge on Platforms 7, 8 & 9. Platforms 3 & 6 where always designed to be alternative calling Platforms should ever Platform 4 or 5 be out of use for whatever reason. So the poor customer/passengers have to sit there and travel through usable platforms and miss their stop. The issue cannot be that Southeastern are the primary dispatchers of trains on Platforms 7, 8 & 9 because Platform 6 is the same platform as Platform 7 and Thameslink are self dispatch, no platfom staff need, no monitors needed on platforms as they have onboard monitors. Southeastern and Thameslink can be very anti using each others platforms, even though the SIgnaller can easily signal trains through with no to minimal delay. Nor can it be that there is no Harrington Humps, because other Thameslink stoppable pLatform 3 & 6 do not have Harrington Humps. I feel it is just a bitter Southeastern/Thameslink rivalry, 'we are not letting our staff assist your passengers'. Likewise, because Thameslink do not have dispatch staff on Platform 4 & 5, Southeastern trains can not call at these platforms only run through. Internal politics and stupidity no thought of making it flexible for the customer.

 

[43066]

Really odd today - I was on 9R23 (Three Bridges - Bedford) heading into London at London Bridge and noticed a parallel Thameslink Train going through platform 8 non-stop, it was 9S26 (Brighton to Cambridge). We were signalled to a stop just after London Bridge to let it cross and go up to Blackfriars.

It was unusual to see a Thameslink train go through the SouthEastern platforms (although obviously they can), especially with the call at London Bridge cancelled as it didn't stop but otherwise normal service along route. Checked later and it appears 9J32 and 9T24 also did the same.

Do not really understand why those three were diverted but our train went through normal Thameslink Platform at same time? Can anyone enlighten?

It’s unusual but does happen - most commonly if it a TL train sits down in LBG station itself. In this case it was felt it made most sense to allow the ECML bound train to claw back some time.

Southeastern and Thameslink can be very anti using each others platforms, even though the SIgnaller can easily signal trains through with no to minimal delay. Nor can it be that there is no Harrington Humps, because other Thameslink stoppable pLatform 3 & 6 do not have Harrington Humps. I feel it is just a bitter Southeastern/Thameslink rivalry, 'we are not letting our staff assist your passengers'. Likewise, because Thameslink do not have dispatch staff on Platform 4 & 5, Southeastern trains can not call at these platforms only run through. Internal politics and stupidity no thought of making it flexible for the customer.

This is nonsense. It’s isn’t generally done because it doesn’t make operational sense to do it - nothing to do with “internal politics and stupidity” - the station and surrounding railway is specifically designed to segregate CH+, TL and CST flows.

However it can be done where it makes sense to aid recovery.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It’s unusual but does happen - most commonly if it a TL train sits down in LBG station itself. In this case it was felt it made most sense to allow the ECML bound train to claw back some time.



This is nonsense. It’s isn’t generally done because it doesn’t make operational sense to do it - nothing to do with “internal politics and stupidity” - the station and surrounding railway is specifically designed to segregate CH+, TL and CST flows.

However it can be done where it makes sense to aid recovery.

Platforms 8&9 are pretty straight compared to 4&5 so ought to be easier for self dispatch but this is one of many examples where the industry says it "Puts the Passenger First" but it doesn't try hard enough to resolve examples like this. Anyhow good to see all that expensive flexibility being used to work around an issue and signallers and train crew deserve credit for that its not there fault trains aren't allowed to stop.

 

[ComUtoR]

Platforms 8&9 are pretty straight compared to 4&5 so ought to be easier for self dispatch

The on board cameras are what makes it possible. The curvature of the platform has little impact on self dispatch when they are being used.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The on board cameras are what makes it possible. The curvature of the platform has little impact on self dispatch when they are being used.

So even less of reason not to be able to use any platform if its illuminated for DOO.

 

[LBMPSB]

It’s unusual but does happen - most commonly if it a TL train sits down in LBG station itself. In this case it was felt it made most sense to allow the ECML bound train to claw back some time.



This is nonsense. It’s isn’t generally done because it doesn’t make operational sense to do it - nothing to do with “internal politics and stupidity” - the station and surrounding railway is specifically designed to segregate CH+, TL and CST flows.

However it can be done where it makes sense to aid recovery.

Not nonsense at all. Southeastern passenger trains are not permitted to call at at Platforms 4 &5 London bridge, they can run through non-stop. Likewise, Platforms 7,8 & 9 12 Thameslink do not permit their passenger trains to stop there. I agree that the whole station was designed to be flexible. I was on several of the many meetings in the designing of the station. What those meetings failed to take stock of, bearing in mind they started pre-privatisation, was stock, and TOCs and dispatch operations. If Platform 4 or 5 at London Bridge is out of use, for whatever reason, GTR Thameslink will divert their trains via Tulse Hill because only GTR trains get delayed, instead of running via London Bridge delaying South Eastern Trains. Having spent seven years Signalling London Bridge from TBROC, I can tell you it is not nonsense!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Not nonsense at all. Southeastern passenger trains are not permitted to call at at Platforms 4 &5 London bridge, they can run through non-stop. Likewise, Platforms 7,8 & 9 12 Thameslink do not permit their passenger trains to stop there. I agree that the whole station was designed to be flexible. I was on several of the many meetings in the designing of the station. What those meetings failed to take stock of, bearing in mind they started pre-privatisation, was stock, and TOCs and dispatch operations. If Platform 4 or 5 at London Bridge is out of use, for whatever reason, GTR Thameslink will divert their trains via Tulse Hill because only GTR trains get delayed, instead of running via London Bridge delaying South Eastern Trains. Having spent seven years Signalling London Bridge from TBROC, I can tell you it is not nonsense!

Whats nonsense though is the cost all the S&C associated signaling and ongoing maintenance only for it to not be used. Would have far better to have just eliminated much of it for simpler design and longer term reliability but we are where we are. Of course GBR will be an opportunity to harmonise everything although like the formation of British Railways in 1948 the industry hasn't got a good track record of just having one way of doing things.

 

[43066]

Not nonsense at all. Southeastern passenger trains are not permitted to call at at Platforms 4 &5 London bridge, they can run through non-stop. Likewise, Platforms 7,8 & 9 12 Thameslink do not permit their passenger trains to stop there. I agree that the whole station was designed to be flexible. I was on several of the many meetings in the designing of the station. What those meetings failed to take stock of, bearing in mind they started pre-privatisation, was stock, and TOCs and dispatch operations. If Platform 4 or 5 at London Bridge is out of use, for whatever reason, GTR Thameslink will divert their trains via Tulse Hill because only GTR trains get delayed, instead of running via London Bridge delaying South Eastern Trains. Having spent seven years Signalling London Bridge from TBROC, I can tell you it is not nonsense!

It doesn’t make sense to delay the intensive SE Network just because a GTR train has sat down. The system allows the intense GTR and SE operations to continue with more limited disruption to both and tends to work well, as the example in the OP demonstrated when we were discussing it in March. The layout also allows flexibility during engineering possessions etc.

None of that is down to “internal politics and stupidity” or a “bitter rivalry” between SE and TL, not least because the station was built by NR, not by the TOCs! That was the thrust of my response when we discussed this issue back in March.

Whats nonsense though is the cost all the S&C associated signaling and ongoing maintenance only for it to not be used. Would have far better to have just eliminated much of it for simpler design and longer term reliability but we are where we are. Of course GBR will be an opportunity to harmonise everything although like the formation of British Railways in 1948 the industry hasn't got a good track record of just having one way of doing things.

As above, the design allows far more flexibility during disruption. The intention was always to segregate TL and SE, hence the extensive remodelling of the SEML between London Bridge and North Kent East. I can remember the old London Bridge and the current version is infinitely better.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As above, the design allows far more flexibility during disruption. The intention was always to segregate TL and SE, hence the extensive remodelling of the SEML between London Bridge and North Kent East. I can remember the old London Bridge and the current version is infinitely better.

Absolutely no question that London Bridge station and the remodelling of approaches is one of Network Rails finest enhancement projects. However the fact remains that projects like this build in plenty of redundancy which is most welcome but if its not going to be used then whats the point given the huge costs involved. This is a common theme in many enhancement projects with reversible signalling incorporated as it should be but then in times of disruption it doesn't get used. An area for GBR to target to get us back to operating basics and keeping trains moving and perhaps not getting so worried about keeping schedule 8 costs down.

 

[Phil R]

Coincidentally for a while late this afternoon whilst an incident on 4/5 was being dealt with, down trains used 3 and up trains used 6.

 

[swt_passenger]

Absolutely no question that London Bridge station and the remodelling of approaches is one of Network Rails finest enhancement projects. However the fact remains that projects like this build in plenty of redundancy which is most welcome but if its not going to be used then whats the point given the huge costs involved. This is a common theme in many enhancement projects with reversible signalling incorporated as it should be but then in times of disruption it doesn't get used. An area for GBR to target to get us back to operating basics and keeping trains moving and perhaps not getting so worried about keeping schedule 8 costs down.

I’m sure I saw a NR drawing of the eastern approaches to London Bridge that highlighted certain sets of crossovers as “TOC requested extras“ or some such term. Does anyone else remember seeing that?

 

[Bald Rick]

Coincidentally for a while late this afternoon whilst an incident on 4/5 was being dealt with, down trains used 3 and up trains used 6.

Yes, Mrs BR was caught up in this. Ill passenger on the platform, screens up and police everywhere.

I’m sure I saw a NR drawing of the eastern approaches to London Bridge that highlighted certain sets of crossovers as “TOC requested extras“ or some such term. Does anyone else remember seeing that?

Very much so. There were three crossovers that the TOCs insisted on including to approve the network change. Without them we wouldn’t have the TL Rainham services. I’ll leave others to decide whether its a good thing or not.

 

[Horizon22]

Very much so. There were three crossovers that the TOCs insisted on including to approve the network change. Without them we wouldn’t have the TL Rainham services. I’ll leave others to decide whether its a good thing or not.

Well Rainham was of course something of a fudge after looking at suitable S.London terminuses that didn't go through East Croydon and whilst the Bermondsey Flyover and subsequent approach rebuild has made the whole area more reliable and reduced crossing moves, the Thameslink Rainham service is a bit of an oddity which I know initially Southeastern passengers who lost their direct Greenwich - Charing Cross connection were not best pleased by considering some were told it would "not be possible"!

 

[Bald Rick]

Well Rainham was of course something of a fudge after looking at suitable S.London terminuses that didn't go through East Croydon and whilst the Bermondsey Flyover and subsequent approach rebuild has made the whole area more reliable and reduced crossing moves, the Thameslink Rainham service is a bit of an oddity which I know initially Southeastern passengers who lost their direct Greenwich - Charing Cross connection were not best pleased by considering some were told it would "not be possible"!

Quite. I have my views!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Well Rainham was of course something of a fudge after looking at suitable S.London terminuses that didn't go through East Croydon and whilst the Bermondsey Flyover and subsequent approach rebuild has made the whole area more reliable and reduced crossing moves, the Thameslink Rainham service is a bit of an oddity which I know initially Southeastern passengers who lost their direct Greenwich - Charing Cross connection were not best pleased by considering some were told it would "not be possible"!

It loads pretty well though from stns through the core so clearly some demand for it.

 

[Horizon22]

It loads pretty well though from stns through the core so clearly some demand for it.

Well of course, just like the Elizabeth line loads well from Abbey Wood; a service through C. London as opposed to a terminus will always do well. That being said the Southeastern service via Maze Hill to Cannon Street is still quite busy.

 

[SE%Traveller]

It loads pretty well though from stns through the core so clearly some demand for it.

additionally from May2018 until May 2022 it was swollen by the Sevenoaks service passengers crossing from platform 3

 

[Minstral25]

Quite. I have my views!

Be interesting to hear - Rainham has always been a bit odd. My view is that they should have gone to East Grinstead fully replacing the Victoria trains, perhaps sending Uckfield to Victoria if Diesels could be sent.

 

[Horizon22]

Be interesting to hear - Rainham has always been a bit odd. My view is that they should have gone to East Grinstead fully replacing the Victoria trains, perhaps sending Uckfield to Victoria if Diesels could be sent.

The issue was - as far as I know it - capacity issues at Windmill Junction so nothing could replace Southern terminators past East Croydon which was certainly the initial plan until the modelling suggested it wouldn’t work. So you have this fudge.

 

[Minstral25]

The issue was - as far as I know it - capacity issues at Windmill Junction so nothing could replace Southern terminators past East Croydon which was certainly the initial plan until the modelling suggested it wouldn’t work. So you have this fudge.

Yes I was aware - hence why I proposed remove Victoria to East Grinstead service so creating space at Windmill Junction. This is getting into Speculative not for this part of forum. I was just wondering what Bald Ricks alternative would have been, considering his knowledge of details?

 

[Surreytraveller]

I think the original plan for what are the Rainhams was for them to have gone to Tattenham Corner

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the original plan for what are the Rainhams was for them to have gone to Tattenham Corner

Correct