Thameslink core broken - 13th July 26 - what could be done to improve things?

[Russel]

The LNER "promise" of accepting GTR passengers has completely vanished. When GTR issued a "do not travel" notice because of major disruption a few months ago, I asked both GTR and LNER to accept tickets between Stevenage and London - only to be told they won't because a) the Cambridge stoppers were running (nothing else was!) and b) LNER is a separate company and has nothing to do with GTR passengers!

I can count on one hand the number of times LNER conveyed GTR pax between Stevenage and London. Most of those times it wasn't even advertised!!

Madness, both are ultimately controlled by the DFT and subsidised by the taxpayer who then can't use said train they paying for in multiple ways...

Never mind, I'm sure the wonderful world of GBR will solver everything!

 

[riceuten]

The LNER "promise" of accepting GTR passengers has completely vanished.

That's never coming back. I can only assume some senior manager at LNER has taken against this proposal and will resist any attempts to reinstate.

I can count on one hand the number of times LNER conveyed GTR pax between Stevenage and London. Most of those times it wasn't even advertised!!

Me too.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the issue was at Farringdon was it not possible just turn around as many trains as possible at St Pancras, Kentish Town, Blackfriars or City Thameslink & London Bridge?

I’d love to invite you to control to show you the practicalities of such a strategy, but unfortunately I can’t.

 

[bramling]

I’d love to invite you to control to show you the practicalities of such a strategy, but unfortunately I can’t.

And here lies the problem with the whole thing. Before a particular Sunday in May 2018 we were all being told how well it would all work, and that the GN side is a “simple” network and there were all sorts of well-prepared contingencies in place, including running GN trains into King’s Cross.

Fast forward overnight from the Saturday night to the Sunday morning, and all of a sudden everything is so difficult and complex that the only way Thameslink can handle disruption is to pull down the shutters and tell people not to travel. Who would have predicted it would all pan out like this?…

 

[rmHawk765]

I’d love to invite you to control to show you the practicalities of such a strategy, but unfortunately I can’t.

Well if it isn't practical, why wasn't the practicality considered? XR can do this, for instance, but TL can't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2026 ==

including running GN trains into King’s Cross.

Which has now been made impossible thanks to the maxed out platform utilisation with the Dec 2025 timetable...

 

[saismee]

It's really a fundamental flaw with just sending trains from everywhere to everywhere and making them share track with hundreds of other services. It works a lot better on XR because you can just send (some) trains that originally would've gone to Abbey Wood to Shenfield or vice versa, and terminate westbound trains short at Paddington, because it has full use of almost all of its infrastructure. Whereas a Brighton-Bedford train cannot just terminate at Kentish Town or Finsbury Park.

XR is so much more resilient. There's also the option for shuttles such as Ilford to Shenfield, or Liverpool Street to Shenfield if there's a problem at Stratford or in the core respectively.

 

[RGM654]

Since only one Snow Hill tunnel was ever built, it's been a limitation for a hundred and sixty years. Building another north-south tunnel as a back-up / diversionary route would be an expensive exercise.

There is of course also the Brunel tunnel, which could in principle get you across the River, but with no connection to the ECML.

 

[Silver Cobra]

The LNER "promise" of accepting GTR passengers has completely vanished. When GTR issued a "do not travel" notice because of major disruption a few months ago, I asked both GTR and LNER to accept tickets between Stevenage and London - only to be told they won't because a) the Cambridge stoppers were running (nothing else was!) and b) LNER is a separate company and has nothing to do with GTR passengers!

I can count on one hand the number of times LNER conveyed GTR pax between Stevenage and London. Most of those times it wasn't even advertised!!

I know I shouldn't really give them credit for this, but LNER did permit passengers to use their services between Stevenage and Kings Cross during the first heat wave back last month (the red warning heat wave). Though as far as I remember they didn't publicise this very much. I only found out they were doing it when I saw the trains that normally show 'Set Down Only' for the destination on the screens at Stevenage showing 'London Kings Cross' instead.

 

[Dave W]

It was a W3 bus, these terminate at the northwest side of the station but perhaps the driver took a wrong turn! Double deckers fit under the bridge on the south side of the station, but not under the bridge on the north side.

Did anything else come of this? The way Wells Terrace and the routes are set up here make it harder for a bus to hit the bridge than avoid it. Serious brainfade in play, I'd think!

 

[Horizon22]

If there is a "service recovery plan", there seems little evidence of it on the ground. TSGN seem to instantaneously cancel the Brighton to Cambridge trains when there are any issues at all.

Cancellations do sometimes form part of a recovery plan; if capacity is reduced and trains are not cancelled, you ended up just causing residual delays for ages. Not to mentioned agreed contingency plans also result in removal of some service groups.

 

[riceuten]

Cancellations do sometimes form part of a recovery plan; if capacity is reduced and trains are not cancelled, you ended up just causing residual delays for ages. Not to mentioned agreed contingency plans also result in removal of some service groups.

They do, but TSGN just cancels ALL Brighton - Cambridges the minute there is an issue. I doubt any form of assessment is undertaken. The residual delays last till the end of service on almost every occasion, which happens when you run a service with the bare minimum of staff and zero leeway

 

[OneOfThe48]

They do, but TSGN just cancels ALL Brighton - Cambridges the minute there is an issue. I doubt any form of assessment is undertaken.

If you need to reduce the number of trains that operate as capacity is reduced, an individual service group will need to be chosen.

Which service group would you prefer to remove instead?

 

[bramling]

If you need to reduce the number of trains that operate as capacity is reduced, an individual service group will need to be chosen.

Which service group would you prefer to remove instead?

I’m not convinced that’s the reason GTR do it. Their control is clearly overwhelmed during disruption, so ditching Cambridge-Brighton gives them one less thing to have to manage. That isn’t really an acceptable way to run a railway, especially given how often things fall over which means Cambridge-Brighton gets pulled very often. Also, it’s often the case that no attempt is made to bring it back once the original problem has finished, normally after midday you can forget it.

In any case, Peterborough-Horsham isn’t exactly great during disruption either. Whilst it doesn’t tend to get pulled in entirety in the same way as Cambridge-Brighton, you can still end up with a lot of trains off the railway, resulting in some significant gaps in the service north of Hitchin.

As if all this isn’t enough, there’s been a few days recently where GTR have pulled virtually the entire GN service, either outer or inner. There’s been more than a few occasions when I’ve looked at OTT maps and there’s been not one single GTR outer-suburban train between London and Cambridge / Peterborough. That was unheard of before May 18.

 

[jon0844]

They do, but TSGN just cancels ALL Brighton - Cambridges the minute there is an issue. I doubt any form of assessment is undertaken. The residual delays last till the end of service on almost every occasion, which happens when you run a service with the bare minimum of staff and zero leeway

Going by previous incidents, depending on the circumstances of the disruption there are set plans that are adopted - presumably so action can be taken quickly, and both control and the signallers are aware early on. It likely also aids planning for driver resources and saves time trying to work things out on the fly.

It seems 9Sxx services are always first to go, and I can only assume that's because there are other options from King's Cross to Cambridge, and other trains to Brighton from St Pancras and Victoria.

I am sure there's a set order of trains to cancel as things get worse, such as having to operate using just one line in the core. I wonder if a FOI request could be made to find out what the plans are?

 

[OneOfThe48]

In any case, Peterborough-Horsham isn’t exactly great during disruption either. Whilst it doesn’t tend to get pulled in entirety in the same way as Cambridge-Brighton

Because the Peterborough service is the only one that serves the intermediary stations between Hitchin and Peterborough; the Cambridge service is replicated across the route for all except Ashwell & Morden which you can put stops on the stopper to cover.

And yes, if capacity is restricted you need to remove trains and therefore need to pick which ones to remove.

Trouble is we would all prefer it to be someone else's train

 

[GordonT]

It seems 9Sxx services are always first to go, and I can only assume that's because there are other options from King's Cross to Cambridge, and other trains to Brighton from St Pancras and Victoria

As long as the same (or their own frequent) disruption hasn't significantly impacted upon the other options.

 

[jon0844]

As long as the same (or their own frequent) disruption hasn't significantly impacted upon the other options.

Well, yes, but when things get that bad then all bets are off and chances are there are many more services cancelled and you're in code red or potentially black territory.

 

[Benjwri]

The LNER "promise" of accepting GTR passengers has completely vanished. When GTR issued a "do not travel" notice because of major disruption a few months ago, I asked both GTR and LNER to accept tickets between Stevenage and London - only to be told they won't because a) the Cambridge stoppers were running (nothing else was!) and b) LNER is a separate company and has nothing to do with GTR passengers!

I can count on one hand the number of times LNER conveyed GTR pax between Stevenage and London. Most of those times it wasn't even advertised!!

Worth noting if your train is cancelled you dont need to ask, as it is stated policy on Thameslink's website that you can use LNER:

f your train has been cancelled and you still want to travel, you can use any publicly owned operator’s service via any reasonable route at no extra cost to complete your journey, up to two hours before or two hours after the cancelled service.

For example:

• If you are in Havant or Hastings travelling to London with a ticket routed ‘via Haywards Heath’ and your intended train is cancelled, you can use your ticket on any Southern, South Western Railway or Southeastern service via any reasonable route within two hours of your intended train to complete your journey.
• If you are in Brighton or Cambridge and travelling to London with a ‘Thameslink Only’ or ‘Greater Anglia Only’ ticket and your intended train is cancelled, you can use your ticket on any Thameslink, Southern, Gatwick Express, Great Northern or Greater Anglia service via any reasonable route within two hours of your intended train to complete your journey.

The publicly owned operators in this area are: Southern, Thameslink, Gatwick Express, Great Northern, South Western Railway, Southeastern, London North Eastern Railway, Greater Anglia, C2C and London Northwestern

 

[rmHawk765]

Trouble is we would all prefer it to be someone else's train

The fact is that when Cambridge-Brighton did not exist, a certain group of trains from King's Cross would be cancelled, so there was none of this fighting over what to cancel. It's pathetic how clear it is that ECML TL is not and will not be reliable until appropriate infrastructure upgrades are made (beyond Copenhagen Jn).

Essentially TL created a problem by adding two new longer distance services which are not even particularly useful and often subtract 4tph of capacity from the ECML even when the ECML is running fine itself. Of course it'll make people annoyed that the Brighton or Horsham train which replaced their King's Cross train is in reality just always delayed or cancelled, especially when the service was advertised as being more useful...

the Cambridge service is replicated across the route for all except Ashwell & Morden which you can put stops on the stopper to cover.

Only 1tph covers all stations up to Cambridge all the time, and adding stops everywhere on the fasts is completely unrealistic. Baldock & Royston for instance receive 3tph off-peak of which 2tph is the Brighton service. By canning these services these stations receive only 1tph off-peak which inevitably will cause crowding. And yes, you can argue these are relatively small towns, but why should we scrap their services, as you say?

Fitting that today there have been delays, knock-on delays and more delays. The timetable basically breaks at peak.

 

[OneOfThe48]

The fact is that when Cambridge-Brighton did not exist, a certain group of trains from King's Cross would be cancelled, so there was none of this fighting over what to cancel. It's pathetic how clear it is that ECML TL is not and will not be reliable until appropriate infrastructure upgrades are made (beyond Copenhagen Jn).

Essentially TL created a problem by adding two new longer distance services which are not even particularly useful and often subtract 4tph of capacity from the ECML even when the ECML is running fine itself. Of course it'll make people annoyed that the Brighton or Horsham train which replaced their King's Cross train is in reality just always delayed or cancelled, especially when the service was advertised as being more useful...


Only 1tph covers all stations up to Cambridge all the time, and adding stops everywhere on the fasts is completely unrealistic. Baldock & Royston for instance receive 3tph off-peak of which 2tph is the Brighton service. By canning these services these stations receive only 1tph off-peak which inevitably will cause crowding. And yes, you can argue these are relatively small towns, but why should we scrap their services, as you say?

Fitting that today there have been delays, knock-on delays and more delays. The timetable basically breaks at peak.

It’s a fair challenge, though doesn’t really answer the question of what services should be removed instead to keep the Brighton to Cambridge group running?

Or should we just remove Cambridge Thameslink group permanently to reduce the impact of disruption on other routes on the ECML? It would be without a replacement service of course as Kings Cross is full

The dream of a perfect infrastructure free of fault lives on

 

[NSEWonderer]

Going by previous incidents, depending on the circumstances of the disruption there are set plans that are adopted - presumably so action can be taken quickly, and both control and the signallers are aware early on. It likely also aids planning for driver resources and saves time trying to work things out on the fly.

It seems 9Sxx services are always first to go, and I can only assume that's because there are other options from King's Cross to Cambridge, and other trains to Brighton from St Pancras and Victoria.

I am sure there's a set order of trains to cancel as things get worse, such as having to operate using just one line in the core. I wonder if a FOI request could be made to find out what the plans are?

For us it seems the 9Ps are always the first to go or be heavily affected. Its already one of the most unreliable changes to the Greenwich line alone in "normal running". Genuinely don't see the point of running past Dartford or Kentish town with something so prone to delays

 

[whoosh]

Cambridge Brightons already use the Quarry Line and have to share Hitchin to Cambridge with stopping services, which they can end up stuck behind thwarting any catching up of time, so are limited with how much time they can recover. They also have short turnarounds especially at the Cambridge end. Sometimes the driver who works the train into Cambridge might work it back south, so a termination short at Royston or Letchworth can take place to enable time to be caught up for the southbound journey, but that's about all that can be done.

Peterborough Horhsams also have short turnarounds, but benefit from being able to be able to skip stops - both running non-stop on sections of route with no other trains sharing between Hitchin and Holme junction except the odd freight which isn't stopping at stations, or being diverted from the Redhill line to the Quarry line if they are running late. There seems to be more options available to catch up time for that service group than the Cambridge Brightons.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

What was the point of introducing Cambridge-Brighton and/or Peterborough-Horsham anyway?

The attraction of an increased frequency (at least through the core) quickly falls away if the Cambridge-Brighton's (in particular) get canned to try and keep resilience to the rest of the services. Why not cancel the Bedford-Three Bridges services? Don't Bedfords still run to Brighton?

 

[Mattplans]

Genuinely don't see the point of running past Dartford or Kentish town with something so prone to delays

Strong agree. Probably shouldn't have gone via Greenwich either, since that has undermined the whole idea about the withdrawal of services from Charing Cross to avoid crossing junctions.

 

[OneOfThe48]

Why not cancel the Bedford-Three Bridges services? Don't Bedfords still run to Brighton?

And halve the service for the stations between Leagrave & Bedford, and Luton and St Albans’s fast services, and reduce/entirely remove the local Redhill area service?

Aren’t we just transferring the ‘my service is always the first to be removed’ complaints from the Cambridge line to those lines?

 

[Steve Harris]

Cambridge Brightons already use the Quarry Line and have to share Hitchin to Cambridge with stopping services, which they can end up stuck behind thwarting any catching up of time, so are limited with how much time they can recover. They also have short turnarounds especially at the Cambridge end. Sometimes the driver who works the train into Cambridge might work it back south, so a termination short at Royston or Letchworth can take place to enable time to be caught up for the southbound journey, but that's about all that can be done.

Peterborough Horhsams also have short turnarounds, but benefit from being able to be able to skip stops - both running non-stop on sections of route with no other trains sharing between Hitchin and Holme junction except the odd freight which isn't stopping at stations, or being diverted from the Redhill line to the Quarry line if they are running late. There seems to be more options available to catch up time for that service group than the Cambridge Brightons.

Sorry, But if your a customer from Huntingdon, St Neots, Sandy, Biggleswade or Arlesey who see's 2 hrs or services whizzing through without stopping it's not a benefit in any way shape or form. These stations do not have any alternative unlike Peterborough (LNER) or Cambridge (Greater Anglia).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2026 ==

What was the point of introducing Cambridge-Brighton and/or Peterborough-Horsham anyway?

New travel opportunities !! (Supposedly.) The fact that you can now travel to Gatwick Airport for your yearly getaway but pay the price of seeing a less convenient service for the rest of the year due to skip stopping (between Peterborough - Hitchin) or disruption imported from the other side of the river !

 

[rmHawk765]

What was the point of introducing Cambridge-Brighton and/or Peterborough-Horsham anyway?

One of the biggest drivers was to allow better connectivity with Gatwick. Before you ask why Stansted links weren't improved, Stansted is almost entirely a Ryanair airport and not everyone needs Ryanair. Therefore this reasoning had some sense in it - but the infrastructure is nowhere near up to scratch to deliver it effectively.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2026 ==

The fact that you can now travel to Gatwick Airport for your yearly getaway but pay the price of seeing a less convenient service for the rest of the year due to skip stopping (between Peterborough - Hitchin) or disruption imported from the other side of the river !

It's just ridiculous to think someone would have an issue with changing in central London to get to Gatwick once a year (not to mention that many prefer Heathrow anyway, and Farringdon is excellent for this now). Even so, the Thameslink core is very nice in the fact that it can function as a central 'interchange corridor' - where you simply need to get off, wait a few minutes and get onto your next train. Quite frankly there's probably no other feasible way to return the pre-Thameslink reliability for the ECML.

 

[saismee]

One of the biggest drivers was to allow better connectivity with Gatwick. Before you ask why Stansted links weren't improved, Stansted is almost entirely a Ryanair airport and not everyone needs Ryanair. Therefore this reasoning had some sense in it - but the infrastructure is nowhere near up to scratch to deliver it effectively.

So they forced way too many trains into a tunnel with nonexistent slack in the timetable and no effective contingency plans to get a direct service to an airport. That's pretty much the one thing that requires you to be absolutely on-time, which I would not trust Thameslink to do.

 

[bramling]

It’s a fair challenge, though doesn’t really answer the question of what services should be removed instead to keep the Brighton to Cambridge group running?

Or should we just remove Cambridge Thameslink group permanently to reduce the impact of disruption on other routes on the ECML? It would be without a replacement service of course as Kings Cross is full

On the latter point, that’s a political choice. Essentially the politicians are saying to rail users at places like Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock, Royston (none of which are exactly small low-population places) “stuff you, we don’t give a toss that your service is unreliable”.

I see no reason why at least one of the LNER paths should not be ditched to give Hertfordshire a reliable rail service.

As ever, politicians have failed to deliver any workable plan to cope with and/or manage population growth, no doubt one of numerous reasons why politicians (of all parties) are nowadays regarded as the equivalent of sewer rats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2026 ==

One of the biggest drivers was to allow better connectivity with Gatwick. Before you ask why Stansted links weren't improved, Stansted is almost entirely a Ryanair airport and not everyone needs Ryanair. Therefore this reasoning had some sense in it - but the infrastructure is nowhere near up to scratch to deliver it effectively.

Whoopee, I can get to Gatwick without having to change trains! Guess what, I’ve never needed to go from Gatwick and probably never will.

I can’t see people waxing too lyrical about Gatwick for a few journeys per year at the most, compared to potentially several London journeys per week.

And, frankly, if you’re a user of Peterborough-Horsham or Cambridge-Brighton, I wouldn’t be wanting to rely on the train to take me to Gatwick anyway. If you turn up at Letchworth then chances are the Brighton service is likely to be having one of its “shut up shop” days, or if you travel from somewhere like Arlesey then make sure you leave about 5 hours of contingency time in case the next 4 services are cancelled or non-stopping your station.

 

[OscarH]

Peterborough Horhsams also have short turnarounds, but benefit from being able to be able to skip stops - both running non-stop on sections of route with no other trains sharing between Hitchin and Holme junction except the odd freight which isn't stopping at stations, or being diverted from the Redhill line to the Quarry line if they are running late. There seems to be more options available to catch up time for that service group than the Cambridge Brightons.

Don't forget the option to turn at Three Bridges and leave the smaller stops towards Horsham with terrible service (sometimes they'll add special stop orders to Southern trains, but it's not reliably done)