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

[Kite159]

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.

You are not going to fit extra tracks in the space created if you remove half of those platforms at Finsbury Park, and even if you do somehow create extra track where would that track lead to?

 

[Steve Harris]

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.

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.

That ship has already sailed/already happened if your family live/lived in the Cambridge area.

And I'm sure that's not the only area in the country where it is already happening. All bramling is suggesting is making that more common throughout the country.

And I've certainly not seen ghettos in Cambridge when I've visited !

That's when I can visit Cambridge when Thameslink is actually running a reliable service!

 

[Transilien]

And I've certainly not seen ghettos in Cambridge when I've visited !

Yes because they aren’t in Cambridge.

 

[bramling]

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.

It’s a bit of a misnomer that the big problem with Thameslink is the core. Whilst this has its issues from time to time and when they do happen it causes carnage, the bigger problem is delays picked up from elsewhere. From a GN perspective, there’s delays picked up from the Southern Region, but there’s also internal GN delays which the setup makes hard to recover as well - previously at least some of this was absorbed in turnrounds at King’s Cross.

The fundamental problem with Thameslink is that you just have much more chance of issues affecting the service (simply because more mileage increases the opportunity for things to occur), and then the problem that the Thameslink concept also hinders recovery.

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.

I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as a problem caused by “rich people”. It’s a problem caused by numbers, plain and simple, and one which successive governments have totally failed to manage. On the contrary, governments have exacerbated it. What is the point of building new homes only to have them filled up, directly or indirectly, with new arrivals? This solves nothing, and just creates issues along the lines of what we see with rail travel in the Thameslink-served Home Counties. In effect one massive Ponzi scheme.

It isn’t like many of these new homes offer much of a standard of living. If one were to buy something in aforementioned “Henlow” (which ironically once had a railway station right on the doorstep called Henlow Camp), you are basically living in a dormitory. A completely featureless utilitarian village, where your standard of living is having to plan what times you can drive places as at the wrong time of day it can take 45 minutes to travel the 5 or so miles to the next town, Hitchin. About the only other thing the place can offer is the ability to walk your dog 500 yards along the A600. That’s hardly a success story.

 

[Mattplans]

Better turnback capability at St Albans to facilitate terminating short

I honestly think there needs to be another bay platform or loop somewhere between London and Luton. St Albans could also use it's own crossover on plt 2 as it is pretty silly that you can't turnback without reversing in the siding. Sutton service only needs to be about 4-7 mins late before it causes congestion.

And if we're spending money, Bedford could use a platform facing the Up Fast.


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

Getting on /off Ilford is slow and restricts capacity.

What does on/off mean? Do you mean passengers boarding/alighting? If so, I can't see how that is any slower at Ilford than at Stratford? And I would've thought the burden on capacity is lesser at Ilford than at Stratford.
A train deboarded at Ilford can reverse in the depot and come out at timetable ( a time that it can be reintroduced to the CCOS and run to time from Whitechapel - instead of the entire return working being canx which is what usually happens ) without much drama. A train at Stratford immediately reversing back into the CCOS causes confusion, requires staff intervention and the driver to swap ends. By the time that's done trains are already queuing up and the platform is overwhelmed. I can't see how that's a practical policy. 2 trains doing that in a row (deboarded at Stratford and reversing back towards London) and you've got overcrowding instantaneously. It's a serious time penalty in my eyes and Ilford seems a lot less disruptive and likely to cause crowding on a narrow platform at one of the busiest stations in the country.

On the flip side, it would rarely be more than 3 trains reversing at Stratford in this hypothetical as the operator will be able to cap trains at Ealing or Paddington before entering the core.

 

[Magdalia]

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.

The supply side problems in the UK housing market are real. There is demand that is not being met.

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.

Housing is rationed, mainly by price, and partly by queue.

And I've certainly not seen ghettos in Cambridge when I've visited !

Cambridge is one of the most unequal cities in England. There is a fair bit of poverty, if you know where to look. The high cost of housing is a significant factor.

What is the point of building new homes only to have them filled up, directly or indirectly, with new arrivals?

The point is economic growth, the Cambridge area needs new homes for the employees working in the expanding science and tech industries. The economic growth then creates more opportunities for the existing local population too.

It’s a bit of a misnomer that the big problem with Thameslink is the core.

Getting back to the railway, and the issues with Thameslink, I would agree with this. The most significant issue is disruption outside the core spreading through the whole if the Thameslink network.

The main reason the EL works better is that almost all crew sign all routes, because it is a short line. Their crew arrangements are also more simple.

For me, this sums up what needs to be done. Thameslink needs to be made more simple, more like the Elizabeth Line. That means maximum 20tph in the core, setting a Thameslink boundary that's maximum 60 miles/75 minutes from the core (Brighton, Bedford and Cambridge but no further), junking routes that add risk for little reward, and sorting out the traincrew arrangements. It is now 8 years since the Canal Tunnel opened in 2018, travel patterns now are quite different from when the 2018 timetable was planned, and bringing everything into GBR means that the time is ripe for a proper review followed by making the necessary changes.

 

[Minstral25]

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

You are lucky you don't use Earlswood (or Salfords) then - where in last 20 days most Thameslink services to London Bridge are showing less than 55% actually running (RecentTrainTimes - Mon-Fri service), many as low as 38% ran in last 20 days.

If you are a station that relies on 9R (Bedford - Three Bridges) services TL does not work

 

[Bald Rick]

• 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

Where has that list come from? And what do some of them even mean? “Re design of Radlett to prevent delays”. How? How much?

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.

Where? and using which drivers? Doing on spec turnbacks creates its own difficulties for crew, as we see.

Thanks to all this it’s very unpleasant cycling anywhere near me now except overnight

I have to disagree about that. I cycle across north Herts / South Cambs at least once a week, and the cycling is fantastic. (except overnight, where it then makes it diffiult to spot the pot holes)

St Albans could also use it's own crossover on plt 2 as it is pretty silly that you can't turnback without reversing in the siding.

That was looked at. Curvature prevents such a crossover without making it very difficult to use in service.

What does on/off mean?

Apologies - on and off the depot. Which is very slow.

You are lucky you don't use Earlswood (or Salfords) then

I wouldn’t say lucky. I agree they particularly get the rough end of the stick. But someone always does, and it is best that where the disadvantage is greatest, it falls upon as few people as possible,

 

[bramling]

Where? and using which drivers? Doing on spec turnbacks creates its own difficulties for crew, as we see.

In the case of Finsbury Park, as stated any northbound service can reverse via Hornsey reversing sidings, southbound via KX or at a push off platform 4. I wonder if it would also be possible to provide a reversing siding in the disused bore of Copenhagen Tunnel. As far as stabling, Hornsey - there will always be a driver available as no driver should be walking off and leaving their train at Finsbury Park. Could also provide a couple of spare drivers at Finsbury Park for utilisation in exactly this sort of situation.

I have to disagree about that. I cycle across north Herts / South Cambs at least once a week, and the cycling is fantastic.

Total disagreement I’m afraid. I’m very fit, very experienced and pretty fast, and I find the area a total nightmare, and much more so than 30 years ago.

There is nowadays not one route out of my town that isn’t a rat run, especially on weekdays but also increasingly so as weekends, and I can pretty much guarantee that if I go out cycling in the daytime I will be having encounters that I would regard as a near miss, that are essentially beyond my control. The standard of driving in the area has become abysmal, and these atrocious drivers are all the more of a liability when they’re driving in country lanes, and all the more so when these country lanes are busier because a load of ghastly new dormitory estates have been plonked in every village.

(except overnight, where it then makes it diffiult to spot the pot holes)

Not a problem for me nowadays, I find modern LED lights have now reached a standard where it’s finally safe to cycle at normal (which for me is typically 20-35 mph) in the dark on unlit roads. This wasn’t possible in the past as even with a massive battery you had a finite amount of time where you could use the high beam. Just have to keep a watchful eye out for animals.

 

[whoosh]

• 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.

I agree about Royston. Maybe alterations at Letchworth should be a consideration too.

I don't see any issue at Metropolitan Junction. What problems do you see here?

There is facility to turn a southbound train back northbound in either through platform at Blackfriars, but obviously would disrupt other trains that needed to continue through the core.
There is facility to turn a southbound train back northbound at London Bridge in platform 6, crossing to the Down Charing Cross line at Metropolitan Junction.

Windmill Bridge was planned to be remodelled, but has been sidelined in the "too costly in the current economic climate" bin.

In the case of Finsbury Park, as stated any northbound service can reverse via Hornsey reversing sidings, southbound via KX or at a push off platform 4. I wonder if it would also be possible to provide a reversing siding in the disused bore of Copenhagen Tunnel.

Canonbury tunnel exists for turning trains arriving on the Up side at Finsbury Park to send them back to the Down side. It's just that it's been decided so far for only drivers at certain depots to sign it. And not all of them sign 700s.

 

[Intercity_225]

Overtaking capability in the Royston area to prevent knock-on delays

Would a replacement of the points in the Royston area to make them 70mph+ fix that?

Finsbury Park layout redesign to prevent knock-on delays and to facilitate terminating short

Would just bi-directionalling all lines between Kings Cross & Alexandra Palace fix this?

Maybe alterations at Letchworth should be a consideration too.

I think this one is the main idea which needs to be considered. It should be possible for the Letchworth stoppers to terminate there without having to crawl into the depot and back. Aswell as this, a 3rd platform would be fantastic for reversing late running Thameslinks (or even Kings Lynns when they stop there in the peaks).

 

[rmHawk765]

You are not going to fit extra tracks in the space created if you remove half of those platforms at Finsbury Park, and even if you do somehow create extra track where would that track lead to?

There is absolutely space if you slice the 3/4 and 5/6 islands in half. The tracks would just lead back to one of the existing lines out. The hardest part would likely be modifying the bridge structures over Stroud Green Rd & Seven Sisters Rd.

 

[Intercity_225]

There is absolutely space if you slice the 3/4 and 5/6 islands in half. The tracks would just lead back to one of the existing lines out. The hardest part would likely be modifying the bridge structures over Stroud Green Rd & Seven Sisters Rd.

I don't see there being any point for platforms 3/4 and 5/6 today anyway. Almost all services use 1/2/7/8 anyway, so it seems pointless keeping them..

 

[zwk500]

There is absolutely space if you slice the 3/4 and 5/6 islands in half. The tracks would just lead back to one of the existing lines out. The hardest part would likely be modifying the bridge structures over Stroud Green Rd & Seven Sisters Rd.

If you cut the platforms in half does it still leave space for the remaining islands to be c.10m wide around the stairwells and lifts, and a minimum of 5m wide at the end?

 

[uglymonkey]

Letchworth was designed as 4 platforms although they never completed the 4 tracks. Today you would have to move the lifts ( which are built in the way, but other than that it should " just" be moving earth.

 

[Intercity_225]

I feel like the solution isn't a bay platform at Finsbury Park. The fact that Highbury Vale Jn, Hornsey EMU Reversing Siding and Bowes Park all exist at a close distance to it make me feel like the real solution is to decrease dwell time when terminating short (also a good solution for Letchworth, aswell). How we do that, however, I'm not sure about.

 

[Magdalia]

I agree about Royston. Maybe alterations at Letchworth should be a consideration too.

Nothing helpful can be done at either Letchworth or Royston.

It should be possible for the Letchworth stoppers to terminate there without having to crawl into the depot and back.

It isn't possible. Letchworth station is constrained by the Bridge Road bridge at the west end and the Norton Road bridge at the east end.

Letchworth was designed as 4 platforms although they never completed the 4 tracks.

The 4 tracks at Letchworth were designed for 6 car trains of 57 feet stock.

Now that the platforms are long enough for 12 cars of 20m stock they extend almost from one bridge to the other. There is no space for any turnouts.

Would a replacement of the points in the Royston area to make them 70mph+ fix that?

No. The crossovers permit overtaking at Royston, and have done so since electrification, but it is done much less frequently than in years gone by. The Hitchin flyover and the Cambridge platform 7/8 island reduced the need to do it.

Through Royston station EMUs can only do 65mph on the down line and 50mph on the up line so 70mph crossovers would be a pointless extravagance, even if there was enough space for them, which there isn't. Furthermore, on the up road the 50mph restriction extends all the way to Ivy Farm crossing because of the need to manage speed of approach to Litlington AHB crossing.

The main issue at Royston is the short signalling overlaps that are a consequence of having reversible platforms. When up trains overtake, down trains have to be stopped near the Litlington end of Royston bypass; when down trains overtake, up trains have to be stopped near the Melbourn end of Royston bypass. It is very difficult to overtake at Royston without disrupting the trains coming the other way.

 

[Minstral25]

I wouldn’t say lucky. I agree they particularly get the rough end of the stick. But someone always does, and it is best that where the disadvantage is greatest, it falls upon as few people as possible,

A rather poor answer, I think. I would expect someone who works for the railways to be more concerned for passengers, especially when there are half a million journey's to and from at those stations.

Plus, of course the issue that the train service is so abysmal, so they all drive to Redhill Station instead and every car park around Redhill Station is packed from very early morning inconveniencing many other passengers, plus users of the town centre.

 

[London Trains]

I think this one is the main idea which needs to be considered. It should be possible for the Letchworth stoppers to terminate there without having to crawl into the depot and back. Aswell as this, a 3rd platform would be fantastic for reversing late running Thameslinks (or even Kings Lynns when they stop there in the peaks).

A potentially cheaper solution could be a new turnback siding between the tracks east of the Norton Way bridge, similar to St Albans or West Croydon.

 

[Intercity_225]

Out of interest, what difference is made by the 2L's running at 27/57 past in the evening peak compared to 06/36 any other time? If the 27/57 past services were run all day, would that improve reliability on the Hitchin - Cambridge line (I don't know what the official name for it is, is it part of the Fen Line?)?

 

[bramling]

Out of interest, what difference is made by the 2L's running at 27/57 past in the evening peak compared to 06/36 any other time? If the 27/57 past services were run all day, would that improve reliability on the Hitchin - Cambridge line (I don't know what the official name for it is, is it part of the Fen Line?)?

A bit anecdotal, but from experience of using them I felt the old timings seemed to work better.

 

[saismee]

I don't know what the official name for it is, is it part of the Fen Line?

It is confusingly named "The Cambridge Line" despite there being many other lines to/from Cambridge.

 

[rmHawk765]

I think this one is the main idea which needs to be considered.

I didn't post that

There is facility to turn a southbound train back northbound at London Bridge in platform 6, crossing to the Down Charing Cross line at Metropolitan Junction.

Essentially the London Bridge rebuild was intended to ensure through-running at all costs, which does make sense in all fairness. Any reversal like this right at the station is pretty costly. It is for this reason that dedicated facilities not available to passengers are likely the best option, an example being the 'sidings' just west of Paddington low level.

Would just bi-directionalling all lines between Kings Cross & Alexandra Palace fix this?

Not really. Every line is needed in the correct direction at peak - it's not really feasible to run trains the wrong way during this time.

I don't see there being any point for platforms 3/4 and 5/6 today anyway. Almost all services use 1/2/7/8 anyway, so it seems pointless keeping them..

There is seemingly no purpose for 3 and 6, I never understood why they exist, apart from possibly some form of crowd control and/or detraining use? 4 & 5 I imagine are somewhat useful to have in case a train ever needs to be stopped on the fast lines.

The issue is that if you add two tracks per my proposal, a compromise has to be made. Either the fast platforms are lost, which reduces terminating capacity in a blockade but keeps some level of cross-platform interchange, or the fast platforms are kept but the TL cross-platform interchange is lost completely. I wouldn't say changing NR platforms at Finsbury is particularly difficult to do even if you need to go downstairs to be honest so perhaps losing the cross-platform interchange is not a huge deal (it is navigating through the station from street level that is a giant pain). The cross-platform has been made a lot less convenient with the Dec 2025 timetable anyway, though I imagine this is because it is very difficult to time a TL train to just about line up with most Moorgate and ex-Moorgate departures.

I feel like the solution isn't a bay platform at Finsbury Park.

And indeed there is no use for one, as it is unnecessary without dedicated flyovers which themselves aren't entirely needed given Canonbury and Hornsey sidings exist. My suggestion of adding two extra tracks to Finsbury is purely to avoid TL delays spilling over onto everything else and vice versa. Also this makes it much easier to terminate TL trains as they don't need to block a heavily used platform for an extended period.

Windmill Bridge was planned to be remodelled, but has been sidelined in the "too costly in the current economic climate" bin.

Which in some ways leaves the BML stuck with its current service levels, and that is a bit of a problem.

Would a replacement of the points in the Royston area to make them 70mph+ fix that?

If I remember correctly the need for loops in the area was identified years ago, though I'm happy to be corrected on this. As has been mentioned upthread, it is not quite as simple as just using the two lines bi-directionally.

 

[whoosh]

Nothing helpful can be done at Letchworth or Royston.

A potentially cheaper solution could be a new turnback siding between the tracks east of the Norton Way bridge, similar to St Albans or West Croydon.

With regards to Letchworth, I was thinking of a slewing of the Down line, and one or two of the Arrival/Departure / Reception lines being placed between the two running lines (rather than on the down side as now), perhaps (after room to hold a 12 car train) crossing the down line to reach the sidings, either with a headshunt or across to the existing exit road.
I wasn't thinking of overtaking being an option here, but a faster way of terminating with less conflicts coming back into service towards London.

Through Royston station EMUs can only do 65mph on the down line and 50mph on the up line so 70mph crossovers would be a pointless extravagance, even if there was enough space for them, which there isn't. Furthermore, on the up road the 50mph restriction extends all the way to Ivy Farm crossing because of the need to manage speed of approach to Litlington AHB crossing.

Littlington is too far away. It's more likely to be the treadles for the red/green lights for users of Ivy Farm crossing (accommodating trains that both pass through Royston and ones that stop there and then start off again), and the sight lines for Green Drift foot crossing.

Overtaking at Royston used to be an option that was used for late running fast trains to overtake stoppers in the past - both tracks are bi-directional through the station. However, with a higher number of trains per hour using the line these days, it doesn't work without delaying the (increased number of) trains in the other direction.
I was pondering whether a shift of the station more towards London slightly might create opportunity for the layout to be opened out for a third platform. There is a disused old loading siding. I haven't looked in depth though, so appreciate it might not be do-able.

I didn't post that


Essentially the London Bridge rebuild was intended to ensure through-running at all costs, which does make sense in all fairness. Any reversal like this right at the station is pretty costly. It is for this reason that dedicated facilities not available to passengers are likely the best option, an example being the 'sidings' just west of Paddington low level.

To be fair, there's only just room for all the through lines to have been shoehorned in through London Bridge. Whilst platform 6 can turn a train around south to north, it's use doing so would be an unlikely outcome to be used.
It is irritating that the next candidate is East Croydon, and as there is no traincrew depot located there, it's really commiting to run through to Three Bridges that is the only option available.

Which in some ways leaves the BML stuck with its current service levels, and that is a bit of a problem.

It does yes. Until a forecast of traffic numbers triggers a rethink (which have taken a hit from COVID), then the significant improvements that a lot of work went into remain on the back burner.

For anyone e wondering what the plans were, here is an article in mid-2020 (early days of the Covid virus) where plans were still being tweaked.: https://londonreconnections.com/a-study-in-sussex-part-15-east-croydon-revisited-again/
Obviously since then, there has been a longer term decline in commuting, which was cemented in part by Covid causing disruption to office worker's commuting patterns and leading to prolonged instructions to work from home (as the virus hung around for quite a while), and have led to longer term desires to continue to partially work from home.

 

[izvor]

You are lucky you don't use Earlswood (or Salfords) then - where in last 20 days most Thameslink services to London Bridge are showing less than 55% actually running (RecentTrainTimes - Mon-Fri service), many as low as 38% ran in last 20 days.

If you are a station that relies on 9R (Bedford - Three Bridges) services TL does not work

I wouldn’t say lucky. I agree they particularly get the rough end of the stick. But someone always does, and it is best that where the disadvantage is greatest, it falls upon as few people as possible,

Not trying to defend the indefensible here, but Earlswood & Salfords do also get a half-hourly Southern service in the peaks, plus both are close to a main road with frequent buses paralleling the railway, plus even the odd GWR making extra calls when all else fails, if rarely.

Ifield and Littlehaven are 100% reliant on TL, and then (often non-existent) extra calls on Southern when the Peterboroughs go down.

As mentioned upthread, Biggleswade, Arlesey &c probably come out worst of all with no such luxuries.

 

[rmHawk765]

Obviously since then, there has been a longer term decline in commuting

I agree that this is true, but I must say, crowding on my local GTR route has gone back to pre-COVID levels with the reduced frequencies (although no 313s to deal with anymore).

 

[Magdalia]

Littlington is too far away. It's more likely to be the treadles for the red/green lights for users of Ivy Farm crossing (accommodating trains that both pass through Royston and ones that stop there and then start off again), and the sight lines for Green Drift foot crossing.

Litlington only has one set of treadles which have to work for both passing trains and trains starting from Royston. That includes trains starting from platform 2 and negotiating the 25mph crossover onto the up line. The restriction ensures that everything is doing about 50mph as it passes Ivy Farm, and therefore hits the Litlington treadles at roughly the same speed.

I was pondering whether a shift of the station more towards London slightly might create opportunity for the layout to be opened out for a third platform. There is a disused old loading siding. I haven't looked in depth though, so appreciate it might not be do-able.

The Royston loop is not disused. In particular it is used daily during the railhead treatment season. It isn't doable anyway because the space is constrained by the Old North Road bridge and the Green Drift foot crossing, which doesn't provide enough length for turnouts and 240m platforms.

 

[Transilien]

As mentioned upthread, Biggleswade, Arlesey &c probably come out worst of all with no such luxuries.

Could LNER perhaps introduce calls at these stations on their shorter distance Lincoln services when Thameslink is down?

 

[Magdalia]

Could LNER perhaps introduce calls at these stations on their shorter distance Lincoln services when Thameslink is down?

No, at least not without significant time losses. Hitchin, Arlesey, Sandy and Huntingdon only have platforms on the slow lines.

 

[Minstral25]

Not trying to defend the indefensible here, but Earlswood & Salfords do also get a half-hourly Southern service in the peaks, plus both are close to a main road with frequent buses paralleling the railway, plus even the odd GWR making extra calls when all else fails, if rarely.

Ifield and Littlehaven are 100% reliant on TL, and then (often non-existent) extra calls on Southern when the Peterboroughs go down.

As mentioned upthread, Biggleswade, Arlesey &c probably come out worst of all with no such luxuries.

The Southern Service is a slow service to London and also requires changes if you want Thameslink, but it helps. Daytime and evenings the lack of Bedford service heavily effects journeys. Strangely the Southern Service runs within a few moments of the Thameslink service by the time you get to East Croydon.

The Buses are also much slower with lots of stops and going via East Surrey Hospital. It's not really an adequate replacement although GTR seem to think they are fine.

People have been sold a direct fast train service to London and Gatwick, not change buses and trains all over the place. Perhaps they should reduce fares for the level of inconvenience.