Could this new Blackfriars and Rochester service continue to Gillingha

[Mattplans]

One new peak hour service between Blackfriars and Rochester ran by Southeastern. It terminates at Rochester, one stop short of Gillingham. It then forms an ECS service to Gillingham depot.



Why not just have it terminate at Gillingham?
My thoughts on these new peak time extras from Blackfriars; Denmark Hill is a more valuable station stop (to interchange with services to/from Victoria and the London Overground) than Elephant. Not sure why they would leave Denmark Hill out.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why not just have it terminate at Gillingham?

Look what is right behind it…

 

[Mattplans]

Look what is right behind it…

If only there were 3 platforms at Gillingham, all of which having access to the TMD.

 

[Bald Rick]

If only there were 3 platforms at Gillingham, all of which having access to the TMD.

All of which would have something else in the way if this was to terminate there!

 

[brad465]

One new peak hour service between Blackfriars and Rochester ran by Southeastern. It terminates at Rochester, one stop short of Gillingham. It then forms an ECS service to Gillingham depot.

View attachment 200610

Why not just have it terminate at Gillingham?
My thoughts on these new peak time extras from Blackfriars; Denmark Hill is a more valuable station stop (to interchange with services to/from Victoria and the London Overground) than Elephant. Not sure why they would leave Denmark Hill out.

Pre-covid terminating at Rochester was common: there was 1tph Blackfriars-Rochester, along with 2tph Victoria-Rochester, of which 1tph (2 in total) were extended to/from Sheerness.

On another note is the rolling stock to be allocated to these Blackfriars' extras confirmed? If I had to guess the Maidstone-Blackfriars and return will be 377s, to keep in line with their existing dominance on this route, while the Rochester/Gillingham ones could be either 375 or 465, as by this point all the available 377s will likely have been allocated.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

If only there were 3 platforms at Gillingham, all of which having access to the TMD.

That is great... but in no way does it meant there is capacity available for 2K95 to be extended to Gillingham... especially as it a rather inflexible layout for timetabling.

From a quick dive into RTT and the Timetable Planning Rules (TPR) it would appear that there is in effect capacity to have either 2K95 or 2K40 terminate at Gillingham whilst the other makes use of the loop platform at Rochester.

The plan as is enables optimising the TPR values to get both sets of units onto the depot before the run of services booked ended by 1S48 and 2K42. To get them both to Gillingham and at least one of shed would require one to have a compressed turnround to ECS which would be a performance risk with the 5 following down services being effectively on headway. Combined with the gap between 1P56 and 9P56 one of 95 or 40 would be sat in P1 for ~20 minutes. Beyond this being inefficient, it would also hinder resilience by removing the advantage of a third platform during disruption.

The TPR are publicly available. I'd be interested in seeing what solution you find to answer your own 'Why not....

 

[Mattplans]

It's almost as though the professionals who write the timetable know better than random people on the internet.....

I would encourage you to re-read my original post, perhaps you could highlight where exactly I claim, or suggest I know better than the professionals. My comment was "Why not have it terminate at Gillingham"; this clearly shows me seeking to understand and establish the reasons why it doesn't terminate at Gillingham, not necessarily arguing that it should or in any way doubting the competence, abilities or knowledge of the "professionals who write the timetables" and make these decisions. Perhaps in your world, any question of a decision made is an assault on your competence; but this is a public forum where discussion regarding the railway is encouraged, and it is also a channel that allows inexperienced and interested individuals to learn more about the industry from those who know better. I didn't know why a certain decision was made - but I asked, and my query was responded to; and I now know better... no thanks to the snide & underhanded tone from some posters.

 

[paulmch]

If only there were 3 platforms at Gillingham, all of which having access to the TMD.

I would encourage you to re-read my original post, perhaps you could highlight where exactly I claim, or suggest I know better than the professionals. My comment was "Why not have it terminate at Gillingham"; this clearly shows me seeking to understand and establish the reasons why it doesn't terminate at Gillingham, not necessarily arguing that it should or in any way doubting the competence, abilities or knowledge of the "professionals who write the timetables" and make these decisions. Perhaps in your world, any question of a decision made is an assault on your competence; but this is a public forum where discussion regarding the railway is encouraged, and it is also a channel that allows inexperienced and interested individuals to learn more about the industry from those who know better. I didn't know why a certain decision was made - but I asked, and my query was responded to; and I now know better... no thanks to the snide & underhanded tone from some posters.

To be fair your second message does certainly suggest that you think the planners have missed something obvious.