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

[zwk500]

Finsbury Park itself cannot be used for any reversing duties on a regular basis at the minute,

Is the signal at the country end of P4 out of use then? It certainly has been used in the past, although doing it during disruption unplanned would be another thing entirely.

 

[bramling]

Simply is doing a hell of a lot of work there. As is the idea of reversing directly off Finsbury Park platform 4. Currently Thameslink trains call on the slow line platforms to clear the fast line, so any reversal would need to be known about in York ROC prior to the route being set.

And I don't think there's any signalled route from the Up Platforms at Finsbury Park to the Hornsey flyover. Reversals would need to be on the Canonbury Spur or in King's Cross itself at which a 12-car can't use platforms 9 or 10.

Apart from that, this is a perfect idea.

I was thinking of northbound trains for reversing via Hornsey. Obviously this wouldn’t work for ex Southern region services if the problem is in the Thameslink core.

None of this is ideal, but it at least would allow the service to be managed during a wider range of disruption situations than happens today.

Or even better just ditch the whole thing and we can go back to having a reliable railway in the first place.

 

[Taunton]

At some point someone in the Thameslink project should’ve asked why we were running through highly congested infrastructure on both sides so far. The frequency on the Elizabeth Line means it doesn’t really matter that few trains cross the core, the change is easy enough and the Heathrow to Shenfields reflect the only real major cross London flow.

That's not even how passengers use it, from Heathrow to Shenfield and v.v. all seem to take the first train and change.

I even do the same on Canary Wharf to Heathrow, take the first train and maybe change at Hayes if needed, rather than wait for some future through service that may be disrupted by the time it is due. Same approach as on the Underground lines with branches.

I also don't understand the fixation with through services, when passengers can be seen to have completely changed over between the two sides. It's not as if those from Hertfordshire are that keen to get to Gatwick - many destinations are served from both Gatwick, and from Luton/Stansted, and people from each side choose their nearest airport rather than crossing London to the other.

 

[rmHawk765]

Is the signal at the country end of P4 out of use then? It certainly has been used in the past, although doing it during disruption unplanned would be another thing entirely.

I meant it feasibly cannot be used without interrupting all the other services. Obviously if you've got a planned blockade it's fine (though the last time this happened it didn't go down too well...)

 

[Gonzoiku]

Maybe my acquaintances are not typical, but it's surprising how many mention trips between Cambridge and Gatwick. People don't use airports only for holidays. I also have friends who regularly use Cambridge to Farringdon (for the interchange with the Elizabeth line), Cambridge to East Croydon, and Cambridge to Brighton: the last-named again not for holidays but for the university there.

I used TL to commute weekly between Bedford and Gatwick - for work. But that was before TL added GN.

GZ

 

[Benjwri]

That's not even how passengers use it, from Heathrow to Shenfield and v.v. all seem to take the first train and change.

I even do the same on Canary Wharf to Heathrow, take the first train and maybe change at Hayes if needed, rather than wait for some future through service that may be disrupted by the time it is due. Same approach as on the Underground lines with branches.

I also don't understand the fixation with through services, when passengers can be seen to have completely changed over between the two sides. It's not as if those from Hertfordshire are that keen to get to Gatwick - many destinations are served from both Gatwick, and from Luton/Stansted, and people from each side choose their nearest airport rather than crossing London to the other.

Yes absolutely, plus’s often more frequent services from the core. I think Heathrow is slightly different and some people do wait, presumably because of luggage, but for the vast majority a quick change in the core is very convenient with level boarding and like.

 

[Mattplans]

Elizabeth Line does have its' own crewing limitations. A train that has arrived from Maidenhead at Whitechapel might not be driven by a driver that signs Shenfield. If an incident takes place between Whitechapel and Abbey Wood, that train is a bit ****ed. They sign Stratford, but not beyond. This is a relatively rare occurence, and it's not happened enough times that it's even clear what the procedure might be, but the frequency between Hayes and Reading can be screwed for a while if something like this happens. When Shenfield is blocked, trains divert to Abbey Wood but they're never reintroduced into service from there. So the next working is cancelled (when a reintroduced service from Abbey Wood could have run to time from Whitechapel), and the return eastbound as well.

On the day of the Stratford fire, they were (pretty foolishly in my opinion) running to Abbey Wood and forming ECS to Old Oak Common. Sod all the stations between Abbey Wood and Paddington, also suffering from severe delays due to the incident. One might've expected the common sense option to run them in service. I think at one point I spotted 3 out of service trains in the core in a row between Abbey and Paddington. Not passenger friendly decision making in my opinion! To make matters worse, some of the actual booked trains from Abbey Wood were starting short at Paddington.

 

[Benjwri]

Elizabeth Line does have its' own crewing limitations. A train that has arrived from Maidenhead at Whitechapel might not be driven by a driver that signs Shenfield. If an incident takes place between Whitechapel and Abbey Wood, that train is a bit ****ed. They sign Stratford, but not beyond. This is a relatively rare occurence, and it's not happened enough times that it's even clear what the procedure might be, but the frequency between Hayes and Reading can be screwed for a while if something like this happens.

They go to Stratford and use the turn around facilities there. That’s exactly why they have route knowledge to Stratford. Any further out trains turn around at Paddington. You can’t start sending trains to Shenfield, even with route knowledge, in that scenario, there just isn’t the capacity.

When Shenfield is blocked, trains divert to Abbey Wood but they're never reintroduced into service from there. So the next working is cancelled (when a reintroduced service from Abbey Wood could have run to time from Whitechapel), and the return eastbound as well.

On the day of the Stratford fire, they were (pretty foolishly in my opinion) running to Abbey Wood and forming ECS to Old Oak Common. Sod all the stations between Abbey Wood and Paddington, also suffering from severe delays due to the incident. One might've expected the common sense option to run them in service. I think at one point I spotted 3 out of service trains in the core in a row between Abbey and Paddington. Not passenger friendly decision making in my opinion! To make matters worse, some of the actual booked trains from Abbey Wood were starting short at Paddington.

Again this is ignoring the capacity constraints. Abbey Wood cannot turn around the full CCOS service. Trying to do so would cause far worse delays in the core eventually, and significant knock on delays to the western section. They tend to clear the CCOS of eastern trains, then reintroduce Paddington to Abbey Wood shuttles if the disruption continues. There have been issues in the past with crewing on these shuttles that resulted in trains being stuck with no driver blocking the core and I suspect these actions reflect learnings.

Regarding the 3 in a row ECS they might’ve been able to run one or two in service, but having too many in a row tipping out at Paddington causes delays clearing the trains, and again loading at Abbey Wood delays the services that are meant to use it.

 

[GordonT]

For something like Peterborough-Horsham or Cambridge-Brighton, I’ve always wondered how it would work if every service was planned with a crew relief at Finsbury Park.

Was the original "meltdown" service plan for bringing Cambridge/Peterborough into Thameslink not partly discredited by "invisible" relief drivers at Finsbury Park? Perhaps in "curing" this problem others were created?
One blessing is that there is no SWR-style conductor operation to compound disruption further when diagrams become unglued.

 

[rmHawk765]

This reminds me of the RER D, which was too long and complicated to the point that many services were shortened and the 'interconnection' across Paris was stopped.

My occasional use of RER services tells me they mostly run fine - what is actually different compared to TL or XR, and does it suffer from similar issues when the core tunnels are blocked?

 

[Mattplans]

They go to Stratford and use the turn around facilities there. That’s exactly why they have route knowledge to Stratford. Any further out trains turn around at Paddington. You can’t start sending trains to Shenfield, even with route knowledge, in that scenario, there just isn’t the capacity.

Stratford is a less than desirable location to turnback. Would it not make more sense to run to Ilford then reverse in the depot? There, you can even have the train form it's return working with roughly the same timings.

having too many in a row tipping out at Paddington causes delays clearing the trains

Very true. I had not considered that.

loading at Abbey Wood delays the services that are meant to use it

I mean, this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? As mentioned some services booked for Abbey Wood were turning at Paddington HL. Either way those services 'that are meant to use it' are being delayed anyway as these trains have to be locked out of use for ECS. In no universe is it more time consuming for passengers to board and depart like usual than it is for them to spend time locking out the train. It would always be much faster for the train to just depart in service?

Recent thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-long-does-it-take-to-lock-out-a-unit.304267/#post-7852368 suggests locking out a 9 car train will take upwards of 7 minutes. Not sure how many staff are able to do this at Abbey Wood during disruption. But I'd bet you can get that platform clearer faster if you depart in service.

 

[Benjwri]

Stratford is a less than desirable location to turnback. Would it not make more sense to run to Ilford then reverse in the depot? There, you can even have the train form it's return working with roughly the same timings.

It is only for when really needed though, at most it's a few trains right after the disruption, which will have services further directly behind them. Anyone on a service that was going to Abbey Wood isn't going to be going to even Stratford anyways.

I mean, this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? As mentioned some services booked for Abbey Wood were turning at Paddington HL. Either way those services 'that are meant to use it' are being delayed anyway as these trains have to be locked out of use for ECS. In no universe is it more time consuming for passengers to board and depart like usual than it is for them to spend time locking out the train. It would always be much faster for the train to just depart in service?

I more meant Abbey Wood in the sense that it would delay services that were meant to go to Abbey Wood. There likely isn't much difference with/without passengers I admit, but as mentioned there is kicking them all off at Paddington. In this do you mean trains terminating atAbbey Wood normally were terminating at Paddington instead? Having a quick look it seems this was just 3 trains? It's hard to say why it was without knowing the actual situation, for example the emergency call stopping the CCOS or trains being stopped there.

It seems to me from what info is available a week later they managed a pretty normal frequency from Abbey Wood the entire evening, bar a 20 minute gap at around the time the fire was supported. Personally I think that's pretty incredible for a situation that blocked the entire eastern side.

 

[GordonT]

My occasional use of RER services tells me they mostly run fine - what is actually different compared to TL or XR, and does it suffer from similar issues when the core tunnels are blocked?

Paris Nord from memory has a fair sized terminating underground station in addition to the through platforms and if the "core" was blocked a reasonable service to the Airport and other destinations is provided by turning trains at Nord. Presumably Gare de Lyon has similar provision for services to/from the south?

 

[bramling]

I meant it feasibly cannot be used without interrupting all the other services. Obviously if you've got a planned blockade it's fine (though the last time this happened it didn't go down too well...)

It can, sort of, be used, as two other up platforms can handle the full through service if required. Agree it’s far from ideal, but nothing about Thameslink is ideal. There has to be an acceptance that the outer-suburban service to Cambridge and Peterborough is important, which means making difficult trade-offs.

Then again, the whole area gets treated like rubbish by successive governments, so why should its rail service be any different?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Was the original "meltdown" service plan for bringing Cambridge/Peterborough into Thameslink not partly discredited by "invisible" relief drivers at Finsbury Park? Perhaps in "curing" this problem others were created?
One blessing is that there is no SWR-style conductor operation to compound disruption further when diagrams become unglued.

Yes partly, GTR’s whole crewing model completely falls apart with only modest levels of disruption, for a number of reasons.

However what I suggested is a bit different, as it essentially crews every service in a standard way - obviously there would have to be a few exceptions at the extremes of the day

Essentially every opposing service swaps drivers at Finsbury Park, so every driver just works an “out and back”. So if you end up with an invisible driver, the driver already on the train takes it back where it came.

This would result in some short notice terminations, but it would retain the service. It wouldn’t be very efficient from a crew point of view, but that’s the least of Thameslink’s problems. Failing to recognise that you can’t run a service like Thameslink with usual efficiency and resource provision was one of the many fundamental errors by those who designed the whole thing.

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s not a bad thing though. At some point someone in the Thameslink project should’ve asked why we were running through highly congested infrastructure on both sides so far. The frequency on the Elizabeth Line means it doesn’t really matter that few trains cross the core, the change is easy enough and the Heathrow to Shenfields reflect the only real major cross London flow.

My bold. The answer to that is simple. It was - because they have already been doing so for several decades.

Essentially Thameslink tries to make Gatwick the epicentre of southeast rail but it fails to do this effectively as it did not bring all the necessary infrastructure improvements.

And what are all the necessary infrastructur improvements?

The simplest way to summarise it is that the Thameslink routes we have today were designed around flows and demand but with no consideration of infrastructure and whether such a set of routes can actually function properly.

No consideration? You mean you know “they” just decided to do it without thinking about it? are you sure?

I also don't understand the fixation with through services, when passengers can be seen to have completely changed over between the two sides. It's not as if those from Hertfordshire are that keen to get to Gatwick - many destinations are served from both Gatwick, and from Luton/Stansted, and people from each side choose their nearest airport rather than crossing London to the other.

Youd be surpirsed at that. Almost every train I get northbound in the evening from London to the MML has Gatwick passengers alighting at St Albans. And there are many more from Gatwick to Farringdon and St Pancras.

My occasional use of RER services tells me they mostly run fine - what is actually different compared to TL or XR, and does it suffer from similar issues when the core tunnels are blocked?

My daily use of TL tells me it mostly runs fine.

Stratford is a less than desirable location to turnback. Would it not make more sense to run to Ilford then reverse in the depot? There, you can even have the train form it's return working with roughly the same timings.

Getting on /off Ilford is slow and restricts capacity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Essentially every opposing service swaps drivers at Finsbury Park, so every driver just works an “out and back”. So if you end up with an invisible driver, the driver already on the train takes it back where it came.

Except there may not be a path to take it back where it came from, if the northbound service is running as planned…

It wouldn’t be very efficient from a crew point of view, but that’s the least of Thameslink’s problems.

That is absolutely one of TL’s big problems.

Failing to recognise that you can’t run a service like Thameslink with usual efficiency and resource provision was one of the many fundamental errors by those who designed the whole thing.

Sorry, that’s not right, it was abundantly clear that different arrangements would have to apply, and that was written into the TSGN franchise.

 

[OscarH]

Youd be surpirsed at that. Almost every train I get northbound in the evening from London to the MML has Gatwick passengers alighting at St Albans. And there are many more from Gatwick to Farringdon and St Pancras.

Absolutely, if our trains from the south terminated at London Bridge it'd be so much worse. While it's annoying when it goes wrong, and there are things that could be improved (especially cutting corners with crewing etc), the majority of the time when it's working it's great

 

[jon0844]

We've had all this hot weather and a load of infrastructure issues so hopefully we see some cooling down and a reduction of incidents as a result.

 

[WeGoAgain]

... it was abundantly clear that different arrangements would have to apply, and that was written into the TSGN franchise.

Are you able to elaborate on that by any chance...? Specifically, what different arrangements?

 

[rmHawk765]

And what are all the necessary infrastructur improvements?

• Better turnback capability at St Albans to facilitate terminating short
• Sort out the freight situation down the MML
• Redesign of Radlett Jn to prevent delays
• Overtaking capability in the Royston area to prevent knock-on delays
• Overtaking capability at Gordon Hill to allow Thameslink trains to divert when the main route via Welwyn is disrupted without being stuck behind stoppers
• Finsbury Park layout redesign to prevent knock-on delays and to facilitate terminating short
• Redesign of Metropolitan Jn to prevent knock-on delays
• Southbound turnback capability at Blackfriars or London Bridge to facilitate terminating short
• Windmill Bridge Jn rebuild to prevent knock-on delays

Notice that, XR does not require any improvements like this. It already has all the infrastructure it can reasonably have.

Those are just strictly infrastructure improvements. Additionally, crew arrangements need to be completely reconsidered to make the network more flexible. Issues with drivers are the main reason why we cannot use turnback facilities that exist already.

 

[Hadders]

Let's have a think about why Thameslink from the GN side is a thing. It's not all about journey opportunities to Gatwick Airport, although that's a happy coincidence (when it all works).

There's massive housing growth all along the GN route. That's going to mean more people travelling by train. Capacity needs to be increased
There was some scope for lengthening trains off-peak but not really for additional services as Kings Cross was full
If you can send some trains somewhere else then that means you can operate more services
You can't realistically send anything to Moorgate due to platform length constrains
So sending four trains via the Thameslink core means you can run more service on the GN outer network, serving the growing population
It also releases some space in Kings Cross which can be used for longer distance services
That effectively maxes out Kings Cross - it gets us through the next few years, the longer term plan would've be to divert soem long distance trains to HS2 which would free up some more space.....
Coincidentally the Thameslink core is also brings relief to the Northern Line so another win

All great in theory, the issue is when things go wrong. I get fewer trains have to run and the Cambridge to Brighton service is the one to cut. Reason being that Cambridge is still served by two Cambridge Cruisers an hour plus the stoppers. There are also services to Cambridge from Liverpool Street. The Horsham to Peterborough service has to be kept running at all costs because it's the only service at stations between Arlesey and Huntingdon.

The issue then is what happens when nothing can run through the core. There needs to be a plan to turn services at somewhere like Finsbury Park, or at least find somewhere else for trains to go if it can't be Kings Cross. If turning services at Finsbury is a problem then I wonder if you can terminate some trains further north, eg at Stevenage, run empty to Welwyn Garden City and park up out of the way before returning north. Then run the stoppers non-stop from Stevenage to Kings Cross, along with anything that you might be able to turn at Finsbury. You'd need a solution for Knebworth and Welwyn North but that's probably not insurmountable.

As mentioned upthread, it's not just infrastructure but crewing that has to be considered as well.

 

[bramling]

Except there may not be a path to take it back where it came from, if the northbound service is running as planned…

So you turn the opposing service as well, or if all else fails (ie a section of the route is unavailable) there remains the option to stable somewhere.

Sorry, that’s not right, it was abundantly clear that different arrangements would have to apply, and that was written into the TSGN franchise.

And yet we see a set of ridiculously complex driver diagrams for GTR. Just taking one look at them it’s abundantly clear that it will be completely unmanageable during disruption. Then there’s the short turnarounds at places like Peterborough, Cambridge, Welwyn GC, Horsham (and can add Kings Lynn to that). So if you are saying someone realised things would have to be different, they didn’t make a very good end result of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

There's massive housing growth all along the GN route.

So another political failure then. Essentially sums up everything wrong with this country. How about don’t build the houses? One could apply the same argument to the ever worsening traffic congestion in the area, for example on the A1M every morning or within towns like Welwyn GC, Stevenage, Hitchin etc.

That's going to mean more people travelling by train. Capacity needs to be increased
There was some scope for lengthening trains off-peak but not really for additional services as Kings Cross was full
If you can send some trains somewhere else then that means you can operate more services
You can't realistically send anything to Moorgate due to platform length constrains
So sending four trains via the Thameslink core means you can run more service on the GN outer network, serving the growing population
It also releases some space in Kings Cross which can be used for longer distance services
That effectively maxes out Kings Cross - it gets us through the next few years, the longer term plan would've be to divert soem long distance trains to HS2 which would free up some more space.....
Coincidentally the Thameslink core is also brings relief to the Northern Line so another win

All great in theory, the issue is when things go wrong. I get fewer trains have to run and the Cambridge to Brighton service is the one to cut. Reason being that Cambridge is still served by two Cambridge Cruisers an hour plus the stoppers. There are also services to Cambridge from Liverpool Street. The Horsham to Peterborough service has to be kept running at all costs because it's the only service at stations between Arlesey and Huntingdon.

The issue then is what happens when nothing can run through the core. There needs to be a plan to turn services at somewhere like Finsbury Park, or at least find somewhere else for trains to go if it can't be Kings Cross. If turning services at Finsbury is a problem then I wonder if you can terminate some trains further north, eg at Stevenage, run empty to Welwyn Garden City and park up out of the way before returning north. Then run the stoppers non-stop from Stevenage to Kings Cross, along with anything that you might be able to turn at Finsbury. You'd need a solution for Knebworth and Welwyn North but that's probably not insurmountable.

As mentioned upthread, it's not just infrastructure but crewing that has to be considered as well.

The crewing is a massive problem, as it places a significant constraint on what can be done during disruption. There’s then the secondary issue that GTR cannot manage their crews during disruption, and the only way I can see to fix that is to heavily simplify the way the crew diagrams are laid out - which in itself is difficult because Thameslink makes the end-to-end journeys longer, which in turn restricts what can be done.

If duties could be constructed so that a driver can do two out and back trips in a duty then it would all be a lot simpler.

 

[Sakuradori]

How about don’t build the houses?

Can't help but feel like you're missing the wood for the trees there. Most people (outside of railforums) would say the lack of homes is more important than Thameslink being busy. Ironically, Stevenage and Welwyn specifically were designated new towns in the latter half of the 1940s to alleviate housing shortages, so this has been going on for almost 80 years now.

I did really like the suggestion of splitting the diagrams at Finsbury Park, and I wondered if it would be more practical for trains to do the same thing at St Pancras, since they sometimes use the low level platforms as terminuses during engineering works in the core. I think as others have mentioned, during peak times there simply isn't the space/pathing/platform availability around there or in KGX, and in the end it comes down to problems associated with trying to squeeze the life out of a decades-old system. Without the infinite money to rip it up and start from scratch (like XR), there's going to have to be compromise somewhere.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How about don’t build the houses?

Most people would agree we need all the houses we can get.
If the trains can't handle it we need to upgrade them too.

 

[Benjwri]

So another political failure then. Essentially sums up everything wrong with this country. How about don’t build the houses? One could apply the same argument to the ever worsening traffic congestion in the area, for example on the A1M every morning or within towns like Welwyn GC, Stevenage, Hitchin etc.

Where do you want everyone to go? Just keep subdiving home and making HMOs? There a housing crisis and they have to go somewhere.

 

[Richardr]

Let's have a think about why Thameslink from the GN side is a thing. It's not all about journey opportunities to Gatwick Airport, although that's a happy coincidence (when it all works).

Plus of course reducing the strain on Kings Cross St Pancras underground station.

 

[bramling]

Can't help but feel like you're missing the wood for the trees there. Most people (outside of railforums) would say the lack of homes is more important than Thameslink being busy. Ironically, Stevenage and Welwyn specifically were designated new towns in the latter half of the 1940s to alleviate housing shortages, so this has been going on for almost 80 years now.

There comes a point where areas of the country just can’t take more housing / people, or at least certainly not without drastically constraining living standards. It’s already at the point where infrastructure can barely cope. At some point there has to be a realisation that any problem with housing is demand-led, but this country seems incapable of having that discussion, so it’s to easy to pretend it’s a supply-side problem and put fingers in ears to all the issues that are arising as a result.

I did really like the suggestion of splitting the diagrams at Finsbury Park, and I wondered if it would be more practical for trains to do the same thing at St Pancras, since they sometimes use the low level platforms as terminuses during engineering works in the core. I think as others have mentioned, during peak times there simply isn't the space/pathing/platform availability around there or in KGX, and in the end it comes down to problems associated with trying to squeeze the life out of a decades-old system. Without the infinite money to rip it up and start from scratch (like XR), there's going to have to be compromise somewhere.

The problem with having crew changes at St Pancras is that it will increase the dwell time, and I don’t think the throughput would be able to cope with that. Also there is no (convenient) way to run round - not that Finsbury Park is ideal, but it does have six platforms, which is better than two.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2026 ==

Plus of course reducing the strain on Kings Cross St Pancras underground station.

The underground station has generally coped since the northern ticket hall was built. Generally there’s only now issues during disruption.

 

[rmHawk765]

not that Finsbury Park is ideal, but it does have six platforms, which is better than two.

Platforms 3 & 6 are currently wide islands shared with 4 & 5. They're completely unnecessary and it would be a much better use of space to add tracks in the space they currently use, as I mentioned upthread. This makes a longer stand very much doable as no other services would need to use these tracks.

 

[jon0844]

There comes a point where areas of the country just can’t take more housing / people, or at least certainly not without drastically constraining living standards. It’s already at the point where infrastructure can barely cope. At some point there has to be a realisation that any problem with housing is demand-led, but this country seems incapable of having that discussion, so it’s to easy to pretend it’s a supply-side problem and put fingers in ears to all the issues that are arising as a result.

I can see why the thinking is to develop in towns and cities where there's already the infrastructure, but you're right in that if planned poorly it can lead to big issues with not only overcrowding on public transportation, but also impacts on the grid, water and other utilities. Obviously things can be fixed if there's the will to invest - and not just take some S106 funding to do a few token projects here and there and cross your fingers.

Now we have the potential to build homes that can effectively operate off grid, by designing properties to utilise solar (possibly wind too, if you had large turbines to serve new build estates) along with mass battery storage, heat pumps (that could heat and cool), EVs meaning no pollution at point of use, and so on - why aren't we looking at building new towns and cities, and investing in transport links to serve them. Follow the garden city style concept to give people more space and land, rather than squeezing in huge tower blocks wherever there's space in a city to the point where the quality of life is deminished.

Of course, the people wanting to build aren't the people running buses, trains or roads, nor the people planning schools and hospitals. It's all very disorganised but is a topic in its own right that will never likely find a workable and logical solution.

 

[bramling]

I can see why the thinking is to develop in towns and cities where there's already the infrastructure, but you're right in that if planned poorly it can lead to big issues with not only overcrowding on public transportation, but also impacts on the grid, water and other utilities. Obviously things can be fixed if there's the will to invest - and not just take some S106 funding to do a few token projects here and there and cross your fingers.

Now we have the potential to build homes that can effectively operate off grid, by designing properties to utilise solar (possibly wind too, if you had large turbines to serve new build estates) along with mass battery storage, heat pumps (that could heat and cool), EVs meaning no pollution at point of use, and so on - why aren't we looking at building new towns and cities, and investing in transport links to serve them. Follow the garden city style concept to give people more space and land, rather than squeezing in huge tower blocks wherever there's space in a city to the point where the quality of life is deminished.

Of course, the people wanting to build aren't the people running buses, trains or roads, nor the people planning schools and hospitals. It's all very disorganised but is a topic in its own right that will never likely find a workable and logical solution.

The problem at the moment is a lot of the development is the complete opposite of all this. Just round my way, we have Henlow/Stondon/Henlow Camp (the place is such a featureless dump that no one actually knows what to call it), which every time I drive through there has sprung up a new development somewhere. Yet the “village”, if you can still call it that, has virtually zero facilities. Cue people jumping in their car and driving to places like nearby Hitchin, which itself doesn’t actually have that much in the way of services, think of hundreds of new homes and it isn’t difficult to see the priblems this causes.

Then there’s developments in much smaller villages. Every village near me has had new housing built, lots of it in many cases. Again, zero amenities - a village shop in some cases is about the sum-total. So now all the local lanes are choked with cars again driving to the nearest town for the slightest thing. Thanks to all this it’s very unpleasant cycling anywhere near me now except overnight, as pretty much every single road is way busier than 20 years ago.

Then there’s Stevenage. Already a pretty hideous town for the most part, to the extent where the town centre looks about as derelict as Pripyat. Massive new estate going up on the outskirts, formerly green fields much used by walkers. The town is already heavily congested, and the motorway can’t cope, Labour cancelled the plan to widen the motorway back in the 1990s.

There comes a point where we have to say that the land simply cannot take this, and housing has to be rationed just like any other scarce good or service - by the price system determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If people can’t afford to live in the area then they have to live elsewhere, simply as that, which in some cases may mean being unable to move here from abroad.

The whole Thameslink shambles is just one example of how the infrastructure can’t be made to cope. They’ve had 8 years to try and make it work, and if anything things are heading the wrong way.

 

[Transilien]

My occasional use of RER services tells me they mostly run fine - what is actually different compared to TL or XR, and does it suffer from similar issues when the core tunnels are blocked?

The RER D had major issues stemming from the fact that it shares the RER B in its central section. The RER D had so many branches that it would collapse anytime there was a delay in the core. So SNCF made some trains terminate at Gare de Lyon and also Corbeil-Essones as there are more southern branches than northern branches. This helped resilience at a slight cost to the passenger.

There comes a point where we have to say that the land simply cannot take this, and housing has to be rationed just like any other scarce good or service - by the price system determined by the interaction of supply and demand. If people can’t afford to live in the area then they have to live elsewhere, simply as that, which in some cases may mean being unable to move here from abroad.

But what about those who have always lived in the area? Should their children and grandchildren be priced out of their local area for the sake of rich people, both British and foreigners? Many of these people have multiple homes that is just housing air most of the time. Money can’t ration housing, the rich shouldn’t have a better chance of living somewhere than others. It’s basically asking for mass homelessness and ghettos for those who live in poverty, with all the problems associated with that. The UK needs new housing, plain and simple or there will be grave consequences down the road.