That's fine, but part of the plan is to remove the crossing on the level. If you're doing that, that means that you end up with the current Down island for Blackfriars - Dulwich trains, and the Up for Sutton - Victoria. And at that point you bring the stairs and subways into play.
-
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!
Fantasy - Deconflicting services at Herne Hill
- Thread starter squingo44
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
To further clarify my intended approach to this proposal, it's a creative exercise. I want to come up with new ideas of ways to improve the south London commuter rail service. I'm following the heuristic that with a sufficient increase in service frequency, losses of direct connections are acceptable. I'm looking for feedback on my ideas, and to learn whether individual changes are realistic or feasible. I'd move on and suggest a new idea than stick with an idea that is demonstrably unworkable.
I am not able to perform detailed passenger flow modelling, but I don't think that it's really necessary at this stage. I'd be wary, as well, of using reasoning that bakes in the assumptions of the current system - it's difficult to accurately predict the behaviour of a modified passenger rail network before actually implementing the modification, so I'm happy to stick with my heuristic of improving service frequencies.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Stepping back a little, I think that a real capacity bottleneck would be the flat junction at Brixton and the 2-track section on the Chatham Main Line between Brixton and Wandsworth road. It will be difficult to meaningfully increase service frequencies to Victoria without changes here. So my idea of Sutton-Victoria AND moving all the express services to Victoria over to the Catford loop wouldn't work.
I am not able to perform detailed passenger flow modelling, but I don't think that it's really necessary at this stage. I'd be wary, as well, of using reasoning that bakes in the assumptions of the current system - it's difficult to accurately predict the behaviour of a modified passenger rail network before actually implementing the modification, so I'm happy to stick with my heuristic of improving service frequencies.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How effective would it be to simply widen the subway and add an overbridge at the other end of the platforms?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Stepping back a little, I think that a real capacity bottleneck would be the flat junction at Brixton and the 2-track section on the Chatham Main Line between Brixton and Wandsworth road. It will be difficult to meaningfully increase service frequencies to Victoria without changes here. So my idea of Sutton-Victoria AND moving all the express services to Victoria over to the Catford loop wouldn't work.
Noted, and the objective is reasonable - I just think the focus on the Sutton loop Thameslink service is very narrowly focused and misses the broader challenges of achieving that very desirable end. That no one's seriously tried to disentangle the threads suggests to me that the benefits don't match the costs, financial or otherwise.
As for Herne Hill, I don't know it well enough - it's over 20 years since I commuted through there, and I don't think I set foot on the station more than a couple of times. My suspicion is that, once you start changing things, it will be hard to keep the scope limited at which point I come back to my previous question - why not just do the job properly and eliminate the flat junction?
Mattplans
Member
Agreed.
What stops at Catford? And what of Vic-Dartford?
The existing rules on turnarounds are interesting. Why can't step back used on Vic and Jubilee be used on TL?
You're right. That would be simpler. The lack of turnaround capacity at Blackfriars frustrates that, though - there's more capacity on the Sutton Loop than Blackfriars or the crossover at Herne Hill allow, but Blackfriar's capacity more or less equals the capacity of the flat junction at Herne Hill. So grade separating it would not be a straightforward fix either.
For the initial proposal for 4tph Sutton Loop service involving trains terminating at Blackfriars, how were the current problems/issues with e.g. junctions and terminating at Blackfriars planned to be overcome? Have things changed since the 2000s that meant it was potentially possible back then, but isn't feasible/desirable now?
For eliminating stopping services on the Catford Loop, I'm going purely off the notion that the Bakerloo Line Extension will provide enough capacity to make up for the loss of connectivity. There's nothing more to my reasoning than that. You might disagree, but I think it's reasonable.
I'd try and avoid any stops along the Catford Loop for fast services to Victoria since, after all, they're express. But if forced to, I would still try and maintain a uniform stopping pattern by stopping only at Peckham Rye, for the interchange opportunities. I'm not certain whether I'd like to see the Vic-Dartford service maintained, since it involves so many conflicting movements. But ideally between Nunhead and Victoria it would also maintain the same stopping pattern as the expresses. If there's only so many paths needed along the Catford Loop, then maybe there's space for more creative stopping patterns. But I'd like to focus on maximising capacity.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm taking a look at the various lines into and out of the network into and out of Herne Hill, just to see if there's another way to pair up the lines. I'm going off of theoretical max capacity of a line, assuming very simple service patterns and limited branching:
To the north:
Blackfriars bay platforms: 8
Thameslink core: 8 non-BML
Victoria Station, eastern half: 22
London Bridge Low Level, via Dulwich: 12-16
To the south:
Sutton Loop: 8 (higher with Wimbledon second platform + maybe grade separation of Streatham South Jn)
Crystal Palace: 12
Chatham Main Line: 24
Catford Loop: 24
Currently, the Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop each support around 6 services per hour during the peak, but this could be greatly increased if they were better segregated by stopping pattern.
Looking at it this way, there's not much that's possible to do to increase the service frequency at Herne Hill specifically without removing bottlenecks elsewhere. What stands out to me is the 2-tracked section of the Chatham Main Line between Brixton and Wandsworth Road, along with the at-grade junction at Brixton. That would need to be addressed before a meaningful increase in services could be brought to Victoria from the south east.
And on another note, it might be much easier to create a grade-separated curve south of Tulse Hill than at Herne Hill - and route the Sutton Loop via Peckham Rye to London Bridge, while routing Crystal Palace trains to Herne Hill. That might be an interesting idea to pursue, espcially in combination with eliminating the crossover at Herne Hill.
Last edited:
Mattplans
Member
I don't think it's reasonable to essentially close 6 stations. Don't forget a lot of local people use these 6 stops between Nunhead and Shortlands. It's definitely not practical to maroon them all onto the Bakerloo line, especially when you consider that to get to a Bakerloo line stop from some stations (ie Crofton Pk) might even extend journey times by upwards of 40 minutes.
Don't forget you now have the issue with more people using buses - I believe I read today or yesterday somewhere that buses are now at their slowest speeds since records began - could road infrastructure really handle all the extra passengers who used to use the Catford Loop making their way to alternative stations?
I don't understand how one could ever support such uplifts at Kent House and Haydons that quite literally come at the direct expense of every station via Catford. And it's not like these services are lightly used. It's not just ab capacity - someone that lives within walking distance of Crofton Park or Bellingham would be livid (and validly so) with the suggestion they now need to endure a bus journey on the degrading roads of Inner London with extended bus times. I think you should consider passenger loadings
A quick look using https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?TLC=DMK
the busiest service (and this is with both SE and LO calling there) at Denmark Hill is 9Y82 - Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City
A large maj of those pax join between Shortlands and BFR - https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?UIDd=G51335
In contrast the busiest service on the Kent house route - is much less busier - https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?UIDd=P96008
Your plan is going to displace a lot of passengers.
I'm also interested in how many services you think can fit between Victoria and Bromley S via Catford (before they're routed elsewhere?)- how many t/ph
I'm not sure how the users of trains on the Catford loop would feel about losing their local stations and being made to walk further to the already not entirely welcome substitution of main line trains with the Bakerloo. Nor, come to that, am I confident that tthe users of the main line trains that would now be diverted via the longer and slower Catford loop would be especially impressed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Would that have something to do with a large teaching hospital close to Denmark Hill station?
Longer term, building a new base tunnel between Shortlands and Victoria would solve all our problems. But in the immediate future, I think that directing all of the fast southeastern services onto one of the Chatham Main Line and the Catford Loop will be a useful solution. Since the Chatham Main Line has the crossover at Herne Hill to deal with, and the Catford Loop has the Mid-Kent Line running mostly parallel to it, it makes sense to me to sacrifice stopping services on the Catford Loop for the sake of much improved stopping services on the Chatham Main Line.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ok how about this for an idea to improve the terminal capacity at Blackfriars:
1) Disconnect Denmark Hill from Loughborough Junction and use the 4-track viaduct as direction-paired fast and slow lines. Slow lines on the inside.
2) Build a new station at Southwark, with a connection to the Jubilee Line station
3) Add a turnback north of this station, to allow slow lines trains to terminate at the new station. The fast lines head into the Blackfriars bay platfroms
4) Add a grade-separated connection from the fast down line at this Southwark station to the Thameslink down Line, and an at-grade crossover from the fast up line to the Thameslink up line. This provides conflict-free access to the TL core.
Between the three possible terminating points, it should be possible to run >20 TPH along a corridor from Bromley to Southwark via Herne Hill.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that by removing 2 of the 4 peak hour stoppers via the Catford Loop and sending all 4 southeastern express services along the Catford Loop, all 4 express services could be doubled to 2 TPH.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ok how about this for an idea to improve the terminal capacity at Blackfriars:
1) Disconnect Denmark Hill from Loughborough Junction and use the 4-track viaduct as direction-paired fast and slow lines. Slow lines on the inside.
2) Build a new station at Southwark, with a connection to the Jubilee Line station
3) Add a turnback north of this station, to allow slow lines trains to terminate at the new station. The fast lines head into the Blackfriars bay platfroms
4) Add a grade-separated connection from the fast down line at this Southwark station to the Thameslink down Line, and an at-grade crossover from the fast up line to the Thameslink up line. This provides conflict-free access to the TL core.
Between the three possible terminating points, it should be possible to run >20 TPH along a corridor from Bromley to Southwark via Herne Hill.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that by removing 2 of the 4 peak hour stoppers via the Catford Loop and sending all 4 southeastern express services along the Catford Loop, all 4 express services could be doubled to 2 TPH.
Last edited:
That sounds like about 24tph into the eastern side of Vic, that’s double today’s peak frequency…
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Building a cross platform interchange at Herne Hill with that frequency means two sets of Grade seperation at Herne Hill…
Sutton service on the western pair of lines into the bays. Any services for the core from Herne Hill / Denmark Hill via the eastern pair of lines.
Southwark Bridge Jn removed.
All largely conflict free, rather more so than today.
Grade separation there is nigh on impossible (I’m not sure the laws of physcis allow it), but if it is, it is again needing several hundred million punds of real estate.
It would (albeit not a ‘base‘ tunnel) and would be cheaper, and much easier, than your proposal as it stands now.
Last edited:
What's the actual realistic level of demand?
SE London Inners: both the Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop go through areas of gentle to low density. Both have alternative routes relatively nearby but not too nearby. This means no station can be closed but demand is probably capped at 4tph.
Kent outers: for the Medway towns, 2tph Victoria fasts supplementing the 2tph HS is sufficient capacity. 2 additional tph for Swanley - Sole Street is plenty. 2tph to Maidstone alongside the 2tph Charing Cross - Maidstone is again, plenty.
Sutton loop: There's already (taking pre-Covid as reference) 4tph Epsom - Victoria. Thameslink at 4tph each side would again be plenty of capacity. On account 4tph already to go Victoria it makes sense to send the other 4tph to the City.
Both the Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop can essentially accommodate a 4+4 pattern (4 stopping + 4 fast).
Really we are talking about just 16tph at Herne Hill in each direction. A bit annoying in terms of flat junctions but you can live with it.
Seems just an elaborate way of saying 'solution looking for problems'.
SE London Inners: both the Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop go through areas of gentle to low density. Both have alternative routes relatively nearby but not too nearby. This means no station can be closed but demand is probably capped at 4tph.
Kent outers: for the Medway towns, 2tph Victoria fasts supplementing the 2tph HS is sufficient capacity. 2 additional tph for Swanley - Sole Street is plenty. 2tph to Maidstone alongside the 2tph Charing Cross - Maidstone is again, plenty.
Sutton loop: There's already (taking pre-Covid as reference) 4tph Epsom - Victoria. Thameslink at 4tph each side would again be plenty of capacity. On account 4tph already to go Victoria it makes sense to send the other 4tph to the City.
Both the Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop can essentially accommodate a 4+4 pattern (4 stopping + 4 fast).
Really we are talking about just 16tph at Herne Hill in each direction. A bit annoying in terms of flat junctions but you can live with it.
Seems just an elaborate way of saying 'solution looking for problems'.
This isn't how I'm looking at it. I want to increase the frequency and capacity on routes proactively, so that the areas surrounding the stations on the line can be transformed from low density residential neighbourhoods to high-density, mixed use neighbourhoods. My ultimate goal with these changes is to support a policy of aggressive housebuilding and urban development. That's something that can't be achieved if you use demand modelling that reflecting the current level of development.
rmHawk765
Member
If Moorgate did 12tph and can possibly even do 14tph, Blackfriars can too - at least, the station itself, notwithstanding junction constraints immediately after.
I'm pro development, but even I recognise there's a time and place for that. Intensive developments are for places with large town centres with outdated shopping centres, large big box retail sites, or large ex industrial sites. Chatham Main Line and Catford Loop have very little of these things. Predominantly owner occupied relatively nice houses are not getting bulldozed.
Ultimately there is a problem -> solution logic. In London's case the problem statement is the London Plan and the solution statement is the Mayor's Transport Strategy. There are few to no opportunity areas identified along the Chatham Main Line or the Catford Loop and there are good reasons for that.
Moorgate has scissors crossover on the platform ends, and 120m trains.
Blackfriars has trains 33% longer and pointwork up to 200m away.
Laws of physics and all that.
Mattplans
Member
I don't think this necessarily follows with this:
Attempting to stimulate demand with 'aggressive housebuilding' by closing 6 local stations is a new one. Forgive me for not understanding the logic
Every time someone suggests taking the Sutton trains out of the thameslink core they should be forced to stand at Blackfriars on the down platform in the evening peak and see which trains are arriving fully loaded. It won't be the Orpingtons, Sevenoaks or even Brighton mainline services. Streatham, Tulse Hill and Herne Hill to the core are really busy flows.
Making everyone change at Blackfriars or Herne Hill wouldn't work as those stations are currently laid out. The staircases and passageways would be packed (especially as you would need to use the southern staircase at Blackfriars to avoid tapping out and back in)
Making everyone change at Blackfriars or Herne Hill wouldn't work as those stations are currently laid out. The staircases and passageways would be packed (especially as you would need to use the southern staircase at Blackfriars to avoid tapping out and back in)
Good luck with that given the value of the land.
An object lesson for you. Wandsworth council had a policy of doing just that back in the 60s and 70s, leading to the big estates in Roehampton and up the hill from Southfields. Next on the list was the Southfields Grid.
At the time, it was a slightly tired area of terraced housing, with a mixture of residents, combining elderly who'd been there decades, local working class, and incomers who saw good value (my parents were in that category).
The proposals from the council to bulldoze the area and build more tower blocks led to the creation of the local residents association. They put the plans on the political debate and cost Labour the local seats at the follow council election.
Longer term, the activation of community spirit was an important part of shifting the desirability of the area, such that the same houses that were old and obsolete now go for £1m plus.
The Sutton loop services go through whole swaths of similar areas. Areas like Herne Hill which were rundown are now owner occupied by professionals, and highly valued. No sane politician or planner is ever going to threaten to destroy communities speculatively to deliver these new centres when the evidence is that, last time they tried, their success was at best low.
Low density residential neighbourhoods are primarily owner occupied or owned by buy to let landlords.
They can't be transformed into high density mixed use neighbourhoods because of the cost and difficulty of assembling sufficiently large parcels of land.
Sometimes I have to wait for 27 minutes at Blackfriars when returning from Sutton to Cambridge. I do almost exactly this, apart from my viewpoint being the northbound platform. I can confirm that the busiest trains arriving southbound at Blackfriars are the Sutton loop trains.
SE%Traveller
Member
I used the Loading figures for some comparison of various services through Denmark Hill, Herne Hill & Balham,both Average & Total passenger numbers
it's interesting how Thameslink via Catford top both in the Peaks and drop to the least off peak
Note that Catford Services see a lot of disembarking at Denmark Hill for the hospitals and Elephant for Bakerloo line, and vice versa in the evening. Thameslink via Tulse Hill not affected the same way, there being no hospitals equivalents at Herne Hill and better west end options than the Bakerloo line en route.
Re changing trains at Blackfriars I look back at 2018/19 when all Orpington trains ran through core (all day) and all Sevenoaks Trains ran from Blackfriars. In the Evening Orpington Trains would be standing only by Farrigdon, but there would be little change at City Thameslink. When faced with the option of squeezing on a rammed train or taking the short walk to Blackfriars and chosing one's seat at leisure the vast majority would do the latter so the amount changing will not be so great as might immediately be thought.
it's interesting how Thameslink via Catford top both in the Peaks and drop to the least off peak
Note that Catford Services see a lot of disembarking at Denmark Hill for the hospitals and Elephant for Bakerloo line, and vice versa in the evening. Thameslink via Tulse Hill not affected the same way, there being no hospitals equivalents at Herne Hill and better west end options than the Bakerloo line en route.
Re changing trains at Blackfriars I look back at 2018/19 when all Orpington trains ran through core (all day) and all Sevenoaks Trains ran from Blackfriars. In the Evening Orpington Trains would be standing only by Farrigdon, but there would be little change at City Thameslink. When faced with the option of squeezing on a rammed train or taking the short walk to Blackfriars and chosing one's seat at leisure the vast majority would do the latter so the amount changing will not be so great as might immediately be thought.
But there are the places where trains are timetabled to turn back in less than 8 minutes. Ones I know of are Llandudno, Llandudno Junction, Wrexham Central, Bromley North and Blackfriars.
What "alternative" though? The same thing happens at both those stations - trains are timetabled to turn back in less than 8 minutes, and they do so. So it's clearly "deliverable."
I really don't understand what you're asking, sorry.
Turnaround times are functions of
- Ease of shutting and booting cabs
- Train lengths (time taken for the driver to walk from one end to the other end of the train)
- Recovery factor based on the operating characteristics of the service
It pays to understand these factors and differences between locations before making sweeping statements.
zwk500
Veteran Member
The trains at Wrexham are 2 or 3 cars long, so less than half the length of trains timed to turn round in 8 minutes.
Again, I don't understand. I haven't said anything that I think could be reasonably described as a "sweeping statement."
I simply said the fact that at various stations, including the one in discussion here, Blackfriars, trains are timetabled to turn back in less than than 8 minutes. That is true, and it routinely happens.
If you can't or won't tell me what it is you're actually asking me then I think I'll refrain from replying to you again, as I don't understand why you appear to think I've said anything that could be considered controversial.
I think there should be, there's some space east of the viaduct immediately north of Blackfriars Junction. But a connection to the Thameslink core isn't strictly necessary if you construct a turnback north of the Southwark station I'm proposing (somewhere around Union Street Junction), which would have the capacity to reverse as many services as necessary to make up for the lack of turnback capacity at the Blackfriars bay platforms. But Southwark is a pretty remote place to terminate services, so I imagine that the connection to Thameslink would prove valuable.