Opinions/suggestions for changes to Great Northern or Thameslink and linked services.

[PGAT]

The borough council can oppose the Crews Hill New Town but it isn't their choice whether it goes ahead. Parliament can legislate to create a New Town Development Corporation, and the government can make any associated infrastructure a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

The mayor also has powers to veto opposition for developments beyond a certain size. I believe there was recently a case related to a car park in Cockfosters High Barnet where this happened.

 

[43074]

With the Corby Connect service now providing two fasts this was an opportunity to rationalise Thameslink services across MML. The 9Rxx could be curtailed at Luton and make additional calls and the 9P shortened back to West Hampstead. This would leave core frequency the same but lower overall mileage would would save units and crews and release capcity on the Fast Lines.

But why though?

TL fast services on the MML are comparatively profitable, cutting the 9R in this way makes no sense as most of the traincrew are Bedford based anyway. It wouldn't save any units as they are still needed in the peaks.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But why though?

TL fast services on the MML are comparatively profitable, cutting the 9R in this way makes no sense as most of the traincrew are Bedford based anyway. It wouldn't save any units as they are still needed in the peaks.

Maybe but the Corby connects have added extra capacity which isnt that well utilised so can pick up the slack so further improves cost to income ratio. Remember in GBR they are required to seek lowest cost to run the service without (too much) detriment to passengers.

9R's are Three Bridges crews as well.

 

[43074]

Maybe but the Corby connects have added extra capacity which isnt that well utilised so can pick up the slack so further improves cost to income ratio. Remember in GBR they are required to seek lowest cost to run the service without (too much) detriment to passengers.

9R's are Three Bridges crews as well.

The Corby services south of Bedford are very well patronised in fairness

The 9R are also mostly Bedford crew as a hangover from when they were Bedford to Gatwick services, so cutting them back achieves very little

 

[bramling]

Maybe but the Corby connects have added extra capacity which isnt that well utilised so can pick up the slack so further improves cost to income ratio. Remember in GBR they are required to seek lowest cost to run the service without (too much) detriment to passengers.

9R's are Three Bridges crews as well.

I can’t really see a justification for reducing to 2tph north of Luton. There’s been 4tph pretty much for as long as anyone can remember, Flitwick and Leagrave are well used, Harlington less so but there’s a lot of housing development in the area.

If one is looking to reduce mileage on the Midland side, the Rainham-Luton service is the one to look at, not least because off-peak it’s a 2tph service fitting in to an otherwise 4tph pattern.

 

[rmHawk765]

With the Corby Connect service now providing two fasts this was an opportunity to rationalise Thameslink services across MML. The 9Rxx could be curtailed at Luton and make additional calls and the 9P shortened back to West Hampstead. This would leave core frequency the same but lower overall mileage would would save units and crews and release capcity on the Fast Lines.

Shortening the 9Ps to West Hampstead would leave St Albans, Radlett, Elstree, Mill Hill & Brent Cross with 2tph less than now, so it's not really feasible. It would be better to shorten it to St Albans, if the infrastructure allows.

 

[Magdalia]

Well as I said, it's not a given it's not going ahead. But with Tempsford also being an option with much less opposition, it's difficult to see why Crews Hill would be chosen, apart from the obvious location factor.

Tempsford and Crews Hill are both on the priority list see here:

New Towns Draft Programme

www.gov.uk

Informed by the findings of the SEA reports, set out at section 3.2, we propose, subject to this consultation, to take forward 7 locations in the New Towns Programme:

• Tempsford
• Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield
• Leeds South Bank
• Manchester Victoria North
• Thamesmead, Greenwich
• Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, South Gloucestershire
• Milton Keynes

These proposals are at different stages of maturity and require different types of intervention and support – including blends of public and private capital – to achieve their potential. The government therefore intends to tailor its approach to each new town, with a view to making as much progress as possible, as fast as possible.

Our 7 proposed new town locations include 3 priority interventions:

• Crews Hill and Chase Park
• Leeds South Bank
• Tempsford

The government isn't choosing one of Tempsford or Crews Hill; subject to the outcome of the consultation, it has already chosen both.

 

[bramling]

Shortening the 9Ps to West Hampstead would leave St Albans, Radlett, Elstree, Mill Hill & Brent Cross with 2tph less than now, so it's not really feasible. It would be better to shorten it to St Albans, if the infrastructure allows.

Not feasible, the only way to reverse at St Albans is via the centre siding, which is already fully utilised (if anything over-utilised) by the Sutton service.

The only way it wild work is if the 4tph Sutton were extended to Luton or 2tph of them cut back to West Hampstead or Kentish Town. But I’m not sure of the benefit, as all it then really does is provide 2tph faster service from St Albans, Radlett, Elstree, Mill Hill, which the existing service already does, and probably does better.

There seem to be a lot of solutions looking for problems on this thread.

 

[rmHawk765]

The government isn't choosing one of Tempsford or Crews Hill; subject to the outcome of the consultation, it has already chosen both.

Well if we assume it goes ahead anyway, the current infrastructure simply isn't going to cope in the long run. My suggestion of simply running 10tph and maximising the 717 fleet and track capacity would reduce the crowding there is now - it won't help once another 5000 homes are built and people steadily move in. Hertford trains are already full and standing by Finsbury or Gordon Hill, sometimes outright packed, and adding 4tph of 6-coach trains will only do so much.

The only real solution past this point except for expensive and borderline impossible upgrades to Moorgate, is to make Crossrail 2 run to Gordon Hill or Hertford, but that's a whole other can of worms. This arrangement makes a lot of sense though as it frees up a lot of space on the slows from Finsbury to Moorgate and saves terminating capacity, if less trains go from Moorgate to Hertford as a result. Though the main benefit is not to increase Gordon Hill beyond 10-12tph, but rather to run longer trains which significantly increase capacity.

Or, of course, we can come back to the idea of running Thameslink to Gordon Hill. I do like the suggestions of an Orpington-Gordon Hill service - this is a 'true' cross-city service - but if we just continue to use the existing infrastructure it needs to supplement a 10tph Moorgate service, not replace it like XR2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==

There seem to be a lot of solutions looking for problems on this thread.

I'd say the only change that needs to be made to Thameslink is a complete rethink of its routes. Trying to impromptu shorten various routes in an effort to increase reliability is silly. If the route is broken it needs to go.

 

[PGAT]

There seem to be a lot of solutions looking for problems on this thread.

Indeed, cuts for the sake of cuts. When will we learn austerity is not the way forward?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Not feasible, the only way to reverse at St Albans is via the centre siding, which is already fully utilised (if anything over-utilised) by the Sutton service.

Sutton service should be bounced at West Hampstead its an inner suburban service

The only way it wild work is if the 4tph Sutton were extended to Luton or 2tph of them cut back to West Hampstead or Kentish Town. But I’m not sure of the benefit, as all it then really does is provide 2tph faster service from St Albans, Radlett, Elstree, Mill Hill, which the existing service already does, and probably does better.

There seem to be a lot of solutions looking for problems on this thread.

It is a speculation thread!

 

[rmHawk765]

Sutton service should be bounced at West Hampstead its an inner suburban service

As Moorgate Thameslink no longer exists there would be nowhere to send trains to keep that extra 2tph for the MML suburban stations. Cutting that seems small but it's 16 carriages of Desiro City an hour each way, it's quite a lot.

If Moorgate TL still existed we wouldn't have this problem that making the routes make more sense results in unwanted cuts to service levels north of the river. It's obviously not the solution to all problems but it's just something I think is worthwhile to point out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

Latest updates from ETUG regarding GN Inners.

Welwyn Garden City Line Status: No significant service changes are planned for the London to Welwyn Garden City local stopping services for this coming December (2026).

DC: Noted that the Sevenoaks Thameslink services plan to run all day was an aspiration and will continue to run in the peaks only from December 2026.

Sevenoaks will not become all-day, and Welwyn stoppers will not become 4tph all-day again, leaving New Southgate, Oakleigh Park & New Barnet with only the unacceptable 2tph off-peak frequency.

Hertford North Line Future Upgrades: Plans are in motion to improve services on the Hertford North line later this year, with full details to be released once confirmed.

No clear plans for upgrading Hertford service levels yet, but a GTR spokesperson previously stated reinstating 8tph peak is for whatever reason not possible so I imagine this will entail purely a return to the Mon-Sat 4tph off-peak service with no other changes, and nothing being done about the Sunday & peak (over)crowding therefore.

The East Coast Main Line Constraint: The current timetable (introduced in December 2025) was co-designed by all operators on the route to balance high traffic demands. Because trains cannot be scheduled in isolation, even spacing ("clock-face" intervals) isn't always possible.

Peak Service Intervals: Moorgate services on the Welwyn branch already run at roughly even 15-minute intervals during peak times. However, the King’s Cross stopping services and peak Thameslink services to/from Sevenoaks are scheduled much closer together.

No December Changes for Specific Routes: There are no plans to adjust the timings of the King’s Cross stopping services or the peak Sevenoaks Thameslink services this December, though passenger feedback will be kept on file for future revisions.

This suggests to me it is unlikely the evening peak 6tph service to Hertford will be spaced evenly, although they did previously state it will be so we will have to see. And as is clearly stated there are no plans to better space peak Welwyn trains though I imagine this would be very difficult with a Thameslink service anyway.

Benefits of the Dec 2025 Timetable: The major timetable overhaul from last December has successfully increased overall capacity while improving punctuality and reliability across the network.

Well this is a load of nonsense... the Cambridge-Kings Lynn timings are still struggling heavily at peak:

and IC trains are consistently late.

Not overall happy with them using very AI-smelling summaries but not like the lack of major changes is amusing either.

 

[Instinct04]

I think Crossrail has shown that a 6-8tph all stations service from Welwyn would out-perform a 2tph semi fast one. It should be metro only - 6tph to Moorgate with 6tph to Hertford North too, 2 to Stevenage. Easy. 1-2tph extra in peaks, maybe an outer or TL call.... but maybe not... Rip up your timetables.

And once the grumbles are done, this would be no different in uptake.


These could all do with a level of development then. Plenty of land there.

Absolutely not.

Welwyn Garden City had been short changed in recent years due to the distinct lack of fast services (bar the 05:22 to Horsham and the 19:10 to Cambridge)

The likes of Watford, St Albans, Broxbourne and Cheshunt all get fast trains to London both on and off peak.

Cheshunt manages to receive 4tph fast London trains during the peaks on a two track mainline, as does Broxbourne. Unfortunately at the expense of everything else on that line..

This simply shows how WGC, Hatfield and Potters Bar all lose out.

Making everything south of WGC metro only will not solve anything.

 

[Instinct04]

Sevenoaks will not become all-day, and Welwyn stoppers will not become 4tph all-day again, leaving New Southgate, Oakleigh Park & New Barnet with only the unacceptable 2tph off-peak frequency.

Unfortunately this seems to be a trend in North London..

The 3 stations you named all have the following numbers per annum.

New Southgate: 0.920 million per year
Oakleigh Park: 0.924 million per year
New Barnet: 1.273 million per year


Neighbouring stations in Enfield include Bush Hill Park, Enfield Town, Southbury, Turkey Street, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock. All of these stations have 2tph off peak. Their passenger numbers are as follows.

Bush Hill Park: 1.188 million per year
Enfield Town: 2.343 million per year
Southbury: 1.039 million per year
Turkey Street: 0.991 million per year
Ponders End: 0.884 million per year
Brimsdown: 1.135 million per year
Enfield Lock: 1.459 million per year

Key stations to highlight are Enfield Town and Enfield Lock, which are the busiest. Enfield Town especially by far. I cannot believe a station with over 2 million people per year only receives a half hourly service.

Also note that Southbury, Turkey Street and Ponders End do not receive any service uplift during peak hours.


Disgraceful service if you ask me. I am also aware that there are many examples in South and North West London with very low frequencies as well..

 

[JonathanH]

Welwyn Garden City had been short changed in recent years due to the distinct lack of fast services (bar the 05:22 to Horsham and the 19:10 to Cambridge)

The likes of Watford, St Albans, Broxbourne and Cheshunt all get fast trains to London both on and off peak.

Has it been short changed, or is the reality that it isn't a London commuter town to the same extent that the other places are?

What should be taken into account is that commuters move to a place on the basis of its train service and that will dictate the desire for people to commute from there. People who live in Welwyn might consider employment in other places.

The infrastructure available is to a large extent fixed over a long term as investment needs to be targetted based on the available funding. It simply isn't possible to offer the same level of service to all settlements.

 

[bramling]

Has it been short changed, or is the reality that it isn't a London commuter town to the same extent that the other places are?

What should be taken into account is that commuters move to a place on the basis of its train service and that will dictate the desire for people to commute from there. People who live in Welwyn might consider employment in other places.

The infrastructure available is to a large extent fixed over a long term as investment needs to be targetted based on the available funding. It simply isn't possible to offer the same level of service to all settlements.

I think loss of some kind of faster service for Hatfield and Welwyn would be very badly received.

There’s been a limited-stop service for as long as everyone will remember, and it is well used. Hatfield to Finsbury Park in particular is a very popular flow. Also Knebworth and Welwyn North are fairly busy in their own right.

There is so much “solution looking for problem” with all this. Worth reiterating that Welwyn route inner-suburban services are comparatively not well used, especially off-peak, and were similarly not well used even when they had 3tph and 4tph, so I don’t think this can be put down to demand being suppressed because of a poor service.

There is already 2tph to the city, more at peak times. Thameslink doesn’t offer a direct journey to the west end, and whilst it offers that via a potential change at Farringdon, this is not going to compete with Northern Line which offers 10tph, all-day, seven days a week. Everywhere inwards from Hadley Wood has either the Northern or Piccadilly lines close at hand and easily accessible, to varying degrees.

Clearly there isn’t that much demand between Welwyn and the smaller intermediate stations either (though I must admit I’ve done Hadley Wood to Letchworth twice recently, but this is already catered for with a pretty convenient single change).

 

[William3000]

I think loss of some kind of faster service for Hatfield and Welwyn would be very badly received.

There’s been a limited-stop service for as long as everyone will remember, and it is well used. Hatfield to Finsbury Park in particular is a very popular flow. Also Knebworth and Welwyn North are fairly busy in their own right.

There is so much “solution looking for problem” with all this. Worth reiterating that Welwyn route inner-suburban services are comparatively not well used, especially off-peak, and were similarly not well used even when they had 3tph and 4tph, so I don’t think this can be put down to demand being suppressed because of a poor service.

There is already 2tph to the city, more at peak times. Thameslink doesn’t offer a direct journey to the west end, and whilst it offers that via a potential change at Farringdon, this is not going to compete with Northern Line which offers 10tph, all-day, seven days a week. Everywhere inwards from Hadley Wood has either the Northern or Piccadilly lines close at hand and easily accessible, to varying degrees.

Clearly there isn’t that much demand between Welwyn and the smaller intermediate stations either (though I must admit I’ve done Hadley Wood to Letchworth twice recently, but this is already catered for with a pretty convenient single change).

The Cambridge to London King’s Cross off peak slows are fairly fast for Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield heading south. They only stop additionally at Potters Bar, Alexandra Palace, and Finsbury Park.

 

[jon0844]

Welwyn Garden City had been short changed in recent years due to the distinct lack of fast services (bar the 05:22 to Horsham and the 19:10 to Cambridge)

The 0522 is essentially a staff train and essential to bring a lot of crew to WGC so should be safe for some considerable time. The 1910 to Cambridge, that runs fast from KGX, appears to be a fill-in for the lack of a 1858 service.

Ideally you'd reinstate the missing train and keep the 1Cxx service as it's clearly popular and will upset people if it eventually gets cancelled (or, more accurately, returns to being first stop Welwyn North).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

I think loss of some kind of faster service for Hatfield and Welwyn would be very badly received.

There’s been a limited-stop service for as long as everyone will remember, and it is well used. Hatfield to Finsbury Park in particular is a very popular flow. Also Knebworth and Welwyn North are fairly busy in their own right.

There is so much “solution looking for problem” with all this. Worth reiterating that Welwyn route inner-suburban services are comparatively not well used, especially off-peak, and were similarly not well used even when they had 3tph and 4tph, so I don’t think this can be put down to demand being suppressed because of a poor service.

There is already 2tph to the city, more at peak times. Thameslink doesn’t offer a direct journey to the west end, and whilst it offers that via a potential change at Farringdon, this is not going to compete with Northern Line which offers 10tph, all-day, seven days a week. Everywhere inwards from Hadley Wood has either the Northern or Piccadilly lines close at hand and easily accessible, to varying degrees.

Clearly there isn’t that much demand between Welwyn and the smaller intermediate stations either (though I must admit I’ve done Hadley Wood to Letchworth twice recently, but this is already catered for with a pretty convenient single change).

I think it would be nice if we could get at least one more train per hour to go north for people at PBR, HAT and WGC. It would provide more resilience during disruption (hopefully a shorter gap in service and less need to seek extra trains to be given paperwork to stop) and likely help with connections at Stevenage. Mind you, if the extra train was a Peterborough service then less people would even need to worry about changing at Stevenage.

Services to London are pretty frequent, and the inners can get very busy south of New Barnet but certainly not bad enough off-peak to really warrant going to 4tph to Moorgate. That's why it was/is so much better to run the Sevenoaks all day, as it adds additional destinations and convenience - especially at a time when the Sevenoaks trains in the peaks from WGC are proving so popular. Many people simply don't want to take the KGX services and have to find a seat when they can be guaranteed one with a train originating at WGC. It may well be the same at Hatfield and Potters Bar.

 

[Instinct04]

The Cambridge to London King’s Cross off peak slows are fairly fast for Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield heading south. They only stop additionally at Potters Bar, Alexandra Palace, and Finsbury Park.

With the Hertford North to Moorgate service now being doubled to 4tph, I see no reason for Alexandra Palace to remain on the Cambridge slows.

 

[Instinct04]

The 0522 is essentially a staff train and essential to bring a lot of crew to WGC so should be safe for some considerable time. The 1910 to Cambridge, that runs fast from KGX, appears to be a fill-in for the lack of a 1858 service.

Ideally you'd reinstate the missing train and keep the 1Cxx service as it's clearly popular and will upset people if it eventually gets cancelled (or, more accurately, returns to being first stop Welwyn North).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

I can see the missing train you are talking about.

Well anyways, it’s nice to see that WGC has retained some actual fast services.

 

[rmHawk765]

Key stations to highlight are Enfield Town and Enfield Lock, which are the busiest. Enfield Town especially by far. I cannot believe a station with over 2 million people per year only receives a half hourly service.

Also keep in mind that Enfield Town has no Tube connection, just like many other stations in Enfield, including all the ones relevant to this thread (Palmers Green-ish, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park, Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill).

Worth reiterating that Welwyn route inner-suburban services are comparatively not well used

Compared to Hertford trains, absolutely. But it's worth noting that the reason the Tube is more popular here (apart from frequency) is that High Barnet is a terminus and many trains start at Arnos Grove, so it is actually feasible to get a seat. It's very similar to the Welwyn situation. If the NR stations here had a better frequency and seats were usually available then it may very well be better used, but even a 4tph service does not guarantee a seat of course.

Services to London are pretty frequent, and the inners can get very busy south of New Barnet but certainly not bad enough off-peak to really warrant going to 4tph to Moorgate. That's why it was/is so much better to run the Sevenoaks all day, as it adds additional destinations and convenience - especially at a time when the Sevenoaks trains in the peaks from WGC are proving so popular.

They're proving popular because they start at WGC as you mention. It would very much be possible to run 4tph Inners instead as the time difference between the two services is almost non-existent, and they would be just as popular as an all-day Sevenoaks service, not to mention how much easier it is to run to the under-utilised Moorgate than have to meddle around with timings on SE land. To be completely honest I think the Sevenoaks service is too long - it would function better as an RER-style route from say, Orpington, but there's nowhere to terminate before Welwyn unfortunately (unless it's sent to Gordon Hill which does improve connectivity but offers no improvement to Welwyn). It's a painfully slow service south of the river and Sevenoaks gets every train ever so it may as well not go as far, no-one at Sevenoaks uses it anyway. So clearly it going to Sevenoaks is largely irrelevant except for the fact that it bumps the frequency from the core to the ECML up to 6tph at peak, which to be fair I can comfortably say is not unappreciated.

Interesting that there has been no discussion of Hertford and its everlasting lack of fast services, with trains from both stations interestingly enough taking almost exactly 50 minutes to Moorgate/Liv St. Arguably it's easier to restore fast services to Welwyn - 6-coach trains are fine if they're non-stop Finsbury-Welwyn, though running an 85mph train down the fasts is probably not doable. With Hertford it's also complicated but for the reason that you'd have to mix any fast trains with all the stopping services, which would likely require an overtaking loop somewhere, and this is the reason I typically don't really even consider the idea - but in hindsight it may be worth it. Essentially converting the 2tph Moorgate-Stevenage to run fast to Hertford is an alternative to simply running 10tph to Gordon Hill (6 continues to Hertford), as if Hertford passengers prefer the fasts the stoppers will be less busy and an 8tph peak service might suffice. Either way the current peak service is not enough, that's the bottom line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

According to Rail Record, improvements have been made though not as many as I'd like to see. 4tph to Hertford North has been restored, but 6tph in the evening peak still only goes as far as Gordon Hill and the service is still 2tph for the whole line on Sundays. Welwyn remains at 2tph off-peak and Sevenoaks remains peak-only.

 

[Instinct04]

Interesting that there has been no discussion of Hertford and its everlasting lack of fast services, with trains from both stations interestingly enough taking almost exactly 50 minutes to Moorgate/Liv St.

If CR2 comes to fruition, then it will give the West Anglia route 4 tracks, and would allow the Hertford services to run fast from Cheshunt to Tottenham Hale.

Unfortunately, Hertford is a town situated on two very busy routes, with the route into Liverpool Street being essentially fullm (even though some people on here strangely think that it isn’t.)

With Hertford it's also complicated but for the reason that you'd have to mix any fast trains with all the stopping services, which would likely require an overtaking loop somewhere, and this is the reason I typically don't really even consider the idea - but in hindsight it may be worth it. Essentially converting the 2tph Moorgate-Stevenage to run fast to Hertford is an alternative to simply running 10tph to Gordon Hill (6 continues to Hertford), as if Hertford passengers prefer the fasts the stoppers will be less busy and an 8tph peak service might suffice. Either way the current peak service is not enough, that's the bottom line.

I would say that your Moorgate-Stevenage fasts should be all stations to Finsbury Park, then fast to Enfield Chase/Gordon Hill (maybe serve both) then all stations from there to Stevenage.

You could reinstate the outer loops at Gordon Hill and connect them up at the northern end. (GH is really the only place to do it)

Mabye you could have the stoppers timetabled in front of the fasts, and allow the fasts to overtake at GH, meaning the fasts take the paths of the stoppers north of there.

 

[nw1]

The population density on the Crossrail route is somewhat different from the Welwyn route. People still prefer a fast train where there is one - witness people travelling from Brentwood via Shenfield and waiting for the Greater Anglia off-peak services from Romford.

I can't say I know Welwyn and Hatfield particularly well but they seem quite big places, so I'd tend to agree they would probably need a semi-fast service. To give another example and I may not be comparing like for like - I am no expert on the inner ECML - but would people living in say Weybridge and Walton be happy if all their services called at all stations to Waterloo?

 

[jon0844]

I can see the missing train you are talking about.

Well anyways, it’s nice to see that WGC has retained some actual fast services.

Not so much retained as they haven't had a service like this for years. I am sure everyone would love for WGC to be added as a stop on all the peak services that run fast to/from Welwyn North to London though - but the issue is always down to the capacity constraints between WGC and Knebworth.

 

[rmHawk765]

I would say that your Moorgate-Stevenage fasts should be all stations to Finsbury Park, then fast to Enfield Chase/Gordon Hill (maybe serve both) then all stations from there to Stevenage.

Any Moorgate train will be all stations to Finsbury for obvious reasons. Running fast to Enfield Chase doesn't make much sense, Palmers Green & Winchmore Hill have similar passenger numbers. So what you really have are two options:

• Restoring the 2019 pattern where trains skipped Harringay, Hornsey, Bowes Park, Grange Park, Crews Hill (depending on whether the New Town will go ahead but it's unlikely) & Bayford. This did not require any loops with an 8tph peak service to Gordon Hill crucially.
• Building/reinstating loops at Gordon Hill and possibly squeezing in fast FPK-HFN? Not sure if this is actually possible with an 8tph total stopping service, will need to work it out.

 

[Instinct04]

Any Moorgate train will be all stations to Finsbury for obvious reasons. Running fast to Enfield Chase doesn't make much sense, Palmers Green & Winchmore Hill have similar passenger numbers. So what you really have are two options:

• Restoring the 2019 pattern where trains skipped Harringay, Hornsey, Bowes Park, Grange Park, Crews Hill (depending on whether the New Town will go ahead but it's unlikely) & Bayford. This did not require any loops with an 8tph peak service to Gordon Hill crucially.
• Building/reinstating loops at Gordon Hill and possibly squeezing in fast FPK-HFN? Not sure if this is actually possible with an 8tph total stopping service, will need to work it out.

I like the idea of Loops at Gordon Hill.

I would do a fast Hertford North to Finsbury Park service, with maybe only a stop at Crews Hill (if the new town goes ahead) as this will provide an extra empty(ish) train to swallow up all the people from the development.

 

[Baji]

I was wondering whether the East Grinstead route should have an hourly Thameslink services running to/from Bedford.

It would mean services on East Grinstead route will have two services per hour running to/from London every day

• One of them being a Southern service to/from London Victoria
• the other being a Thameslink service to/from Bedford.

How it would work.
The Bedford to Three Bridges will run hourly with the other one being used to form the hourly Bedford to East Grinstead service.

The London Victoria to East Grinstead service would run hourly all day (with perhaps additional services during peak) as the Bedford to East Grinstead service would form the other half making 2tph between East Croydon and East Grinstead.

I did wonder whether East Grinstead route should be transferred to Thameslink and run half hourly every day to Bedford instead of London Victoria so that more services can be increased on other southern routes but I suspose people want to keep the direct connect to/from Victoria and Clapham junction. It doesn’t seem to make sense being half hourly after 2pm and running half hourly only on Wednesday, Thursday and friday. And hourly on Mondays and Tuesday before 2pm during term time

 

[Farigiraf]

The Bedford to Three Bridges will run hourly

Which service would you stop additionally at Earlswood and Salfords to not halve the frequency to these stations?

It doesn’t seem to make sense being half hourly after 2pm and running half hourly only on Wednesday, Thursday and friday. And hourly on Mondays and Tuesday before 2pm during term time

It's half-hourly basically all-day Wednesday-Sunday. The only gaps are between 11am and 3pm on Monday/Tuesday when it drops to hourly. Isn't simply running a few extra Southern services (even if they're lightly loaded) to make it half-hourly all week a better strategy than a timetable rewrite?

A direct TL core connection is useful, but passengers have a destination they want to get to, not just 'anywhere in zone 1'; Victoria and the TL core are on opposite sides of zone 1 so in reality it's 1tph to two places rather than 2tph to 'London', which means that either way you'd have to wait an hour or change at East Croydon to get to where you want to go. 2tph to CLJ/VIC (through which most users of the line have established travel patterns) plus easy connections at East Croydon onto Thameslink satisfies more people on average.

If you did want to give the line a Thameslink service it'd make sense to take over both trains an hour, but then somewhere else would lose out on a Thameslink connection, which would be a political ordeal in itself. Or you could up the frequency to 4tph (2 SN, 2 TL) but that would require a lot of housebuilding on greenbelt land.

 

[Mgameing123]

I was wondering whether the East Grinstead route should have an hourly Thameslink services running to/from Bedford.

It would mean services on East Grinstead route will have two services per hour running to/from London every day

• One of them being a Southern service to/from London Victoria
• the other being a Thameslink service to/from Bedford.

How it would work.
The Bedford to Three Bridges will run hourly with the other one being used to form the hourly Bedford to East Grinstead service.

The London Victoria to East Grinstead service would run hourly all day (with perhaps additional services during peak) as the Bedford to East Grinstead service would form the other half making 2tph between East Croydon and East Grinstead.

I did wonder whether East Grinstead route should be transferred to Thameslink and run half hourly every day to Bedford instead of London Victoria so that more services can be increased on other southern routes but I suspose people want to keep the direct connect to/from Victoria and Clapham junction. It doesn’t seem to make sense being half hourly after 2pm and running half hourly only on Wednesday, Thursday and friday. And hourly on Mondays and Tuesday before 2pm during term time

Honestly I don't think we should have Thameslink routes than we already have and Thameslink should infact cut down on the amount of destinations it serves so they can provide a more frequent service to their busier destinations. This would include scrapping the Sutton loop and the Rainham service. Let Southern and SouthEastern take over those routes. That gives us an additional 6 tph to work with for other destinations.

 

[Kilopylae]

This would include scrapping the Sutton loop and the Rainham service. Let Southern and SouthEastern take over those routes.

I believe the Rainham service only exists to increase frequency in the core: the line through East Croydon is full (so the additional core services had to be sent somewhere).