• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Changes needed to mitigate against the effects of Thameslink core failures

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,392
Location
The Fens
Why is this so bad? I'm of the opinion they should run extra trains via Bromley South to reach their promised frequency. Why would this be so disastrous?
20 tph is a train every 180 seconds, 24 tph is a train every 150 seconds. That interval can be divided as dwell time and reoccupation time. Sometimes I change trains in the core during the peak, and I put a watch on the dwell times and reoccupation times, especially when there is disruption. 150 seconds is achievable for short periods but I'm not convinced that it could be maintained through an entire peak period with trains not being presented in the booked order.

I share your view about Bromley South, but I'd do that by knocking out the Rainham trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,419
Location
London
Or just 'grin and bear it'. It'll take more time to design and implement an interim measure than for the problem to pass.

How can this be acceptable when we have spent £billions on this scheme only for it to be worse than before? No, there's no way we can have this.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,838
So until then we need interim measures to avoid the extreme ends of the route having no service for long periods of time.

’Interim measures’ would mean parts of the route having no service for long periods of time.


Massively. A points failure at Preston Park would no longer impact journeys between London and Cambridge, which is the case now - both directly in the form of the unreliable Cambridge-Brighton service, and indirectly in the form of that unreliable service delaying other, more reliable, GN-side services like King’s Cross-Cambridge and King’s Cross-Kings Lynn.

And yet almost all the Cambridge services ran yesterday through the points failure.



20 tph is a train every 180 seconds, 24 tph is a train every 150 seconds.

strictly speaking, the Tameslink 20tph is a train every 150 seconds, with 4 gaps an hour.
 

Mattplans

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2024
Messages
715
Location
London, UK
not being presented in the booked order.
This is a huge issue - I travel through the core most days of the week and I see this happen all the time. I am entering from the south side and it's not uncommon to see my train from London Bridge (scheduled to arrive later) than the held train from Elephant & Castle which you can see out the window. How do you recommend this issue be solved? Are you in favour of early departures in this situ or better regulation ie stopping my service to allow the one from E&C to go first. - I do say this sounds like common sense, perhaps there are different signallers in these areas, not entirely sure what else is keeping this service from being ran properly? As the service from E&C will probably not run to its' timetable for a long time now.
I share your view about Bromley South, but I'd do that by knocking out the Rainham trains.
Agree completely. There are so many things wrong with this service. I also read an article which suggested the only reason it's run is because Thameslink gets 50% of the revenue from Abbey Wood (journeys from Farringdon to/from Abbey Wood) - not sure how factual this is?
 
Last edited:

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,283
Location
London
If there's a problem at Marble Arch the whole Central Line goes down between Ruislip and Epping. This is just the nature of metro routes and Thameslink is just a big metro. Cross city metros relies on high asset performance levels, and investing in that is more cost effective than reactive 'alternatives'. The infrastructure isn't set up to allow for more services to terminate at London termini - there simply isn't the capacity.

Yes, Thameslink should simplify its timetable so that if there is a problem on one branch the problem is contained to that branch. It should just be
- MML fasts paired with East Croydon - Redhill lines (and peak-extra 'slow' services like East Grinsteads)
- MML slows paired with Elephant (4tph Sutton 4tph Catford Loop)
- ECML fasts paired with BML Quarry Lines (to Brighton)
- ECML slows paired with Cats and Tats.

This simplifies crewing into self-contained cells. For resilience, Peterborough and Cambridge crews should sign each other's routes; and all MML slow drivers should sign both Sutton and Catford Loops.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,392
Location
The Fens
I am entering from the south side and it's not uncommon to see my train from London Bridge (scheduled to arrive later) than the held train from Elephant & Castle which you can see out the window.
When the Sutton-St Albans runs in front of instead of behind the Brighton-Cambridge I'm delighted. I get home 30 minutes earlier, though it means I don't get to time lots of dwell times and reoccupation times at Blackfriars!
 

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,283
Location
London
Responsible for the service being much worse than it was before, despite £billions spent on it.

There's a mixture of unforeseen changes in behaviour after Covid (wave of early retirements and lower willingness to work overtime) and political decisions made between the 2020-2024 period - Treasury penny pinching and not signing off on spending under the previous administration.

The horse has bolted and we are just up sh!t creek without a paddle. That said, driver recruitment is in full swing and any alternative is simply worse than just waiting it out.
 

778

Member
Joined
4 May 2020
Messages
700
Location
Hemel Hempstead
Of the existing services Rainham is 96 minutes and Peterborough is 87 minutes. Both of these are too long and need to be truncated or amputated.
Why does it take 96 minutes to get to Rainham from City Thameslink when the journey is only 37 miles long?
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,185
Splitting the service in the way I suggested means fewer trains required.

A points failure shouldn't be happening anyway (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/are-swiss-trains-genuinely-reliable.293543/)

There were no Thameslink trains from Horsham between 1727 and 1838. That's effectively 1.5 cancellations - in the evening peak!

You can't seriously expect people to wait for nearly an hour in the dark and let Southern trains pass without stopping.

This is not an isolated incident. The overnight trains are regularly cancelled as well.
This is the problem. GTR couldn't care less about Littlehaven and Ifield. They have the half hourly Bognor to Victoria trains, but they rarely put extra stops in when Thameslink is disrupted. Do Thameslink and Southern not talk to each other? Are they in the same office? The up Bognor trains can call at both and still depart from Gatwick on time. See below. They are given 23 minutes from departing Horsham to departing Gatwick, which is what the VEPs did 25 years ago.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Or just 'grin and bear it'. It'll take more time to design and implement an interim measure than for the problem to pass.
We are seven years in. The problem isn't going to pass.
 
Last edited:

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,283
Location
London
When the Core fails there's really not much you can do. It's like the Central Line going down between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street. Ruislip and Epping will simply be f*cked.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,419
Location
London
When the Core fails there's really not much you can do. It's like the Central Line going down between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street. Ruislip and Epping will simply be f*cked.
But this is all new and nothing to do with staff shortages.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,397
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
When the Core fails there's really not much you can do. It's like the Central Line going down between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street. Ruislip and Epping will simply be f*cked.

The whole thing seems to be very much bury head in sand, which is the whole attitude of U.K. government to everything nowadays.

From a GN perspective, we have four separate immediate issues, which if anything seem to be getting worse.

* Peterborough-Horsham is not dependable, and the lack of alternatives between Hitchin and Peterborough in particular. (There are also similar issues south of the river but I’m not going to comment on those as I’m less familiar with how this affects users in practice).

* Cambridge-Brighton is also unreliable, though at least this has alternatives. In particular it gets pulled at the slightest hint of problems. During the daytime this leaves just 1tph at times between Letchworth and Cambridge for the intermediate stations.

* Poor performance of other non-Thameslink GN services. The Cambridge stopping service and the Ely and Kings Lynn services. Late running is endemic, and is likely to get worse when the new timetable comes in.

* Recovery from incidents is poor and disruption often lasts for entire days. Any significant after about midday is likely to result in a significantly disrupted service right through til close.

All four of these issues are a direct result of Thameslink through services and the negative effect they have on an already congested section of the network.

Things that would help:

* Split Peterborough-Horsham in some way. I realise there’s challenges in doing this, but at some point there needs to be an acceptance that this service is not working well. It’s been seven years now and it isn’t improving. Work needs to start now on looking at how this can be split.

* Introduce an all-day hourly Peterborough to King’s Cross service, calling at all stations Peterborough to Hitchin then fast to King’s Cross.

* A look at what can be done to improve performance of the Kings Lynn and Ely services. Longer turnarounds at Kings Lynn and (if possible) at the London end as well would at least give some chance of recovering from delays, though the real problem is delays picked up following slower services between Hitchin and Cambridge, entirely as was envisaged on here a decade ago.

* The quality of regulation on the route could also be better. Like yesterday, I was on a 2Lxx service into London, that lost a few minutes between Letchworth and Alexandra Palace for no particular reason, but then ended up following a Moorgate service between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park, despite the US2 being completely free and seemingly fully available to use.

* Remove the Alexandra Palace stop from the stopping services to give more options to the signallers to recover late running.

* Prioritise getting all the 379s facing the same way, which currently is putting extra time on dwell times in some situations.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,913
Location
UK
Does anybody know whether it.is an ETCS issue or a legacy matter?

Whatever the issue, my understanding is that trains had to proceed on sight because it couldn't be established where trains were. You can only imagine how much that would limit throughput, such that the standard plans to only run certain trains and turn others back/divert into KGX etc would have been impossible and a far harsher plan had to be implemented.
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
5,515
Location
Lichfield
How do we explain today's chaos?

Today? Didn't this start yesterday? (Monday)

The whole thing seems to be very much bury head in sand, which is the whole attitude of U.K. government to everything nowadays.

Network rail and the TOCs are no better though, even on here, when things go wrong, people are quick enough to bury their heads in the sand and pretend things never go wrong.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,419
Location
London
Network rail and the TOCs are no better though, even on here, when things go wrong, people are quick enough to bury their heads in the sand and pretend things never go wrong.

Or just say that frequent disruption is inevitable, having no interest in trying to ensure that these things happen less frequently.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,838
Does anybody know whether it.is an ETCS issue or a legacy matter?

Track circuit in the core near City TL. Plus a train issue for much of the afternoon at Luton (EMR), a disabled train at Burgess Hill, a major fire off railway property (but close enough) at Crawley, a person in distress at Harpenden, a passenger going for a wander on the track at Farringdon (after a similar incident at Blackfriars yesterday). Any one of those would be enough to cause disruption, but all on the same day is quite something .
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,347
* Split Peterborough-Horsham in some way. I realise there’s challenges in doing this, but at some point there needs to be an acceptance that this service is not working well. It’s been seven years now and it isn’t improving. Work needs to start now on looking at how this can be split.
If Horsham trains terminated at Finsbury Park and ran forward to Bowes Park siding to reverse, and Peterborough trains ran to Elephant & Castle running forward to Herne Hill siding to reverse, that would stretch the 700 fleet, so I wonder what other cuts could be made to release additional units.

It would be interesting if Thameslink operated this service one Saturday as a trial to see if it genuinely did improve matters. Passengers would still have a same platform interchange and access to the core.

South side would need 8 units. North side would need 8 units. That is a big increase on the 12 currently needed.

If successful, the same thing could be done with Cambridge to Brighton, but I don't think it could be done with the Bedford services.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,397
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
If Horsham trains terminated at Finsbury Park and ran forward to Bowes Park siding to reverse, and Peterborough trains ran to Elephant & Castle running forward to Herne Hill siding to reverse, that would stretch the 700 fleet, so I wonder what other cuts could be made to release additional units.

I’ve wondered about doing exactly this. You could release one 700/1 which currently does GN-only duties (one peak Peterborough each way), though it would have to be backfilled with 387/379s.

I’ve gone a little hazy on how things have developed since Covid, but I think the Peterborough peak 700/1 may have been provided by abolishing Littlehampton.

It would be interesting if Thameslink operated this service one Saturday as a trial to see if it genuinely did improve matters. Passengers would still have a same platform interchange and access to the core.

Would certainly be interesting to see if it would work in practice. I don’t think using Bowes Park is viable though, as it is used too often for access to Bounds Green Depot. One of the Hornsey reversing sidings can nominally take a 12-car, though I think there are signal sighting issues so would need some level of infrastructure work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top