How will Gatwick station cope with a second runway?

[cle]

There are unusued paths out of London Bridge. Why do we need to divert well-used Thameslink services.

We really just need 1-2 extra tph of: London Bridge - East Croydon - Gatwick Airport services - basically a 'LB GatEx' shuttle - to relieve the longer distance Sussex services and the existing TL services.

I put Three Bridges for convenience to turn it but Gatwick might work - could be Horsham / Haywards Heath / Brighton / Hove, even better, if pathable.

 

[Route115?]

All this talk of tourists suggests that Gatwick is largely inbound traffic whereas the majority is outbound (UK resident). Much of this traffic will not be travelling from central London which is why trying to force more traffic onto the Gatwick Express will not work. I think that things are basically ok at the moment but that things get a bit busy at the weekend. My solution would be run four Southern services north of Horsham at busy times by eliminating coupling & uncoupling. You could even go back to the start of the 80s and add and detach a four-car unit at Gatwick.

It is important that trains have enough luggage capacity. UK outbound passengers may not be travelling to or from central London but they are often travelling with luggage.

 

[London Trains]

There have been literally thousands of flats built in close proximity to many of these stations since Thameslink started running through the core. That's not restricted to the "busy" stations, and the people travelling from those stations and paying to commute are still the bedrock of rail revenue.

You're also taking out most of the core trains from the slow platforms at East Croydon, which leaves East grinstead and other passengers to make a much more difficult connection to the core

Binning off direct services to anywhere useful in central London for the convenience of Gatwick passengers isn't going to go down well. You can try selling it as good for service reliability all you like, but honestly disruption from the core rarely causes more than 20 minutes delay, and forcing a change likely adds more than that to every single daily commute.

The only stations I'm suggesting to lose their service to the Thameslink core are Earlswood and Salfords, where there certainly haven't been thousands of flats built since Thameslink started running through the core, and Crawley-Horsham, where there are faster alternatives available by changing trains.

I'm quite sure that the majority of people along the Redhill Line would appreciate having a much more reliable, robust service* that terminates at London Bridge, which doesn't get canned the minute something goes wrong on the other side of London, often leaving stations unserved for hours, and a reliable service that always serves all stations between Purley and Horsham (excluding Faygate) as opposed to the skip-stopping mess along the corridor at the moment, providing a simple, reliable service for all local journeys along the corridor (which includes the significant inward demand to Gatwick Airport). It also provides commuters along the Redhill line a much higher chance of getting a seat at London Bridge, which is still by far the most popular origin/destination from stations along the line.

All of this would happen alongside the Bedford to Three Bridges continuing to run, ensuring the majority of stations still have a direct service to the Thameslink core. These changes also wouldn't be taking "most" of the Thameslink core services off the slow platforms either, as northbound Horsham to Peterborough services already use the fast lines at East Croydon, and in the other direction, the connection to the East Grinstead services is a 5 minute connection off the Bedford to Three Bridges services (not to mention East Grinstead has its own Thameslink services in the peak - it could be worth slightly extending the operating hours of these services too).

*just read some of the posts on this thread, which is focused on Great Northern but also mentions some of the issues south of the core: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...very-or-lack-of-on-gtr-great-northern.283224/

 

[hwl]

All this talk of tourists suggests that Gatwick is largely inbound traffic whereas the majority is outbound (UK resident). Much of this traffic will not be travelling from central London which is why trying to force more traffic onto the Gatwick Express will not work. I

Agreed - there appears to be a large reality disconnect (/ rose tinted spectacles) about Gatwick Airport usage, so time to do some myth busting based on the latest CAA & CILT analysis of Gatwick:

a) UK residents are 74% of the non-transfer passengers (this does not include UK Expats visiting the UK)
b) 81% of UK residents are from London and South East of which London 42%; Kent, Surrey & Sussex 27% and the rest of the South East 12% (Hampshire 5.9%)
c) business travel is 14% of total non-transfer passenger use
d) 93.7% of airport passengers are not connecting/transfer passengers
e) air passenger rail usage is estimated at 40.1% (a higher share than any other airport - is this potential skewing perceptions?)
f) air passenger coach/bus usage is estimated at 5.4%
[Note Gatwick has 54% public transport target for post runway 2 and is already at 45.5%]
g) air passenger coach/bus usage is estimated at 15%
h) air passenger personal car usage is estimated at %
i) For airport users of the station staff / passenger split of those using both the station and airport is 17% : 83% (Staff are proportionately more likely to use buses)

For flight departures (much more uneven than arrivals through the day):
k) the peaks of departing air passengers arriving at the airport are: 0330 - 0830 and 1530-1730. Note R2 will only operate for ~6 hours a day aligning with the current runway capacity crunch points, the proposed R2 operating hours are 0630-0930 and 1730-2030 with R2 being used for short haul departures only and R1 in mixed mode as at present.
l) the peak in departing air passenger arriving at the airport is 0430 (at which point the GatEx units are still in the depots/stabling points)
m) Tuesday - Thursday are slight busier than Monday/Friday for those arriving by rail
n) On week days Thameslink operates through the night to Gatwick to a limited extent but services services to Victoria don't - hence returning passengers are also likely to use TL but later in the day on their return.



The big capacity elephant in the room at the moment (that hasn't been discussed) is GTR not having enough stock to run trains at maximum length leading to lots of crowding and dwell time issues across large parts of their Southern network. Gatwick have been badgering DfT about this for nearly 2 years already...

For many Gatwick Airport users from further north, express services to Victoria are about as much use a chocolate teapot in the current weather, the majority of airport rail users do not want or need to go anywhere near Victoria. Airport "Victoria" services need to have East Croydon and Clapham Junction stops (but P12/13 can't cope with all services stopping with full timetable) to be more relevant to a minority airport users even after adding stops. For most airport users from north of the airport Thameslink services are far more relevant and useful. There appears to be complete denial about this from a number of thread commenters.

 

[JonathanH]

The big capacity elephant in the room at the moment (that hasn't been discussed) is GTR not having enough stock to run trains at maximum length leading to lots of crowding and dwell time issues across large parts of their Southern network. Gatwick have been badgering DfT about this for nearly 2 years already...

For many Gatwick Airport users from further north, express services to Victoria are about as much use a chocolate teapot in the current weather, the majority of airport rail users do not want or need to go anywhere near Victoria. Airport "Victoria" services need to have East Croydon and Clapham Junction stops (but P12/13 can't cope with all services stopping with full timetable) to be more relevant to a minority airport users even after adding stops. For most airport users from north of the airport Thameslink services are far more relevant and useful. There appears to be complete denial about this from a number of thread commenters.

There seems to be a huge paradox about what Gatwick want here. A return of a fairly irrelevant Gatwick Express shuttle non stop to Victoria when complaining about Southern not having the stock to cater for selected leisure peak travel.

Loadings through East Croydon still seem to be lower than they once were.

 

[Mikey C]

Another issue with a lot of flights from Gatwick, and indeed other airports dominated by budget and charter airlines, is that flights often depart at horrible o'clock, and if people are having to arrive at the airport at 5am, rail use is less attractive or indeed practical.

 

[Magdalia]

there appears to be a large reality disconnect (/ rose tinted spectacles) about Gatwick Airport usage, so time to do some myth busting based on the latest CAA & CILT analysis of Gatwick

Thanks very much for this.

b) 81% of UK residents are from London and South East of which London 42%; Kent, Surrey & Sussex 27% and the rest of the South East 12% (Hampshire 5.9%)

Of the remaining 19%, can you say how much is East of England, which includes all stations Elstree-Bedford and Potters Bar-Cambridge/Peterborough?

And do you have Sussex separately? Most of those coming in and out of the airport by rail will be via the Three Bridges end.

 

[London Trains]

Airport "Victoria" services need to have East Croydon and Clapham Junction stops (but P12/13 can't cope with all services stopping with full timetable) to be more relevant to a minority airport users even after adding stops. For most airport users from north of the airport Thameslink services are far more relevant and useful. There appears to be complete denial about this from a number of thread commenters.

Thank you, this is exactly why I've suggested that the extra Gatwick Express services returning in December should instead be replaced by an additional Thameslink service. The 700s, as bad as they are, are also very well suited for hoards of people with suitcases.

Without the extra GatEx, there shouldn't be any issue with the existing Brighton GatEx (hopefully "rebranded" to a Southern service) stopping at Clapham Junction and East Croydon, as the fasts between Victoria and East Croydon will have 4tph less than they used to (the other "missing" service is the peak Cat/Tat fasts which have next to no chance of returning).

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you, this is exactly why I've suggested that the extra Gatwick Express services returning in December should instead be replaced by an additional Thameslink service.

Thameslink to where?

 

[London Trains]

Thameslink to where?

I've already been over this a few posts above.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Thank you, this is exactly why I've suggested that the extra Gatwick Express services returning in December should instead be replaced by an additional Thameslink service.

Thameslink to where?

There's plenty of Thameslink to London Bridge provided that their services can be resilient. I can't see them going anywhere else from Gatwick

 

[hwl]

There seems to be a huge paradox about what Gatwick want here. A return of a fairly irrelevant Gatwick Express shuttle non stop to Victoria when complaining about Southern not having the stock to cater for selected leisure peak travel.

Loadings through East Croydon still seem to be lower than they once were.

Give the increase in passenger numbers for the airport and increase in proportion of rail to/from the airport the future station usage would probably be double in 15 years time.
Hence everything is needed including bring back CARS, the are no single magic bullet solution here the full magazine is needed. Adding 2tph "GatEx" is an easy first step all the others are harder.

One issue I didn't mention previously is that the current reduced Southern metro services along several parts of the New Cross - Sydenham - Norwood Junction - East Croydon corridor effectively forces many south London local users on to ThamesLink to get to Gatwick

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2026 ==

Thameslink to where?

I've already been over this a few posts above.

But you appear to have failed to understand what Bald Rick has said and keep repeating your existing premise.
GTR effectively did a magic card trick and diverted some East Grinstead services to London Bridge using the Littlehampton paths effectively restoring the traditional pre London Bridge rebuild East Grinstead service pattern. You could potentially run 2tph into London Bridge P10-15 but most users would prefer a return of the missing Southern metro services than additional Southern London Bridge - Gatwick services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2026 ==

Thanks very much for this.


Of the remaining 19%, can you say how much is East of England, which includes all stations Elstree-Bedford and Potters Bar-Cambridge/Peterborough?

And do you have Sussex separately? Most of those coming in and out of the airport by rail will be via the Three Bridges end.

All the detail at the most granular level they give:

L&SE
London 38% of total UK resident airport use, 76.5% of rail to/from airport (rail % = x2.01 total airport share)
West Sussex 8.2% of total, 5.5% of rail (x0.67)
East Sussex 6.8% of total, 6.0% of rail (x0.88 )
Kent 7.5% of total, 0.1% of rail (x0.013)
Surrey 6.8% of total, 3.0% of rail (x0.44)
Hampshire 5.9% of total, 2.5% of rail (x0.42)

Other Regions (only 2 broken out):
East of England 7.5% of total, 3.0% of rail [Hence Thameslink!!!!] (x0.40)
South West 5.4% of total, 0.1% of rail (x0.018)
All other UK regions not already mentioned above = 14.1%, 5.5% of rail (x0.15) [Note Northern Ireland is effectively zero in this methodology because they mostly fly into Gatwick]

 

[London Trains]

But you appear to have failed to understand what Bald Rick has said and keep repeating your existing premise.
GTR effectively did a magic card trick and diverted some East Grinstead service to London Bridge effectively restoring the traditional pre London Bridge rebuild East Grinstead service pattern. You could potentially run 2tph into London Bridge P10-15 but most users would prefer a return of the missing Southern metro services than additional Southern London Bridge - Gatwick services.

I have no idea what you or Bald Rick are talking about. The East Grinstead services have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the Bedford to Littlehampton services (which are completely different paths, spaced exactly 15 minutes apart from the East Grinstead paths, to provide an equal spacing north of the core), which do not exist south of the river except for a couple of contra-peak services to Three Bridges which are effectively stock movements. The old path of the Cat/Tat services out of London Bridge at xx17/xx47 is also vacant too, so there's no need to argue over that specific path anyway.

There is also more than enough capacity at London Bridge P10-15 for both the missing metro services and an additional 2tph that I am proposing, as the missing London Bridge to East Croydon (Coulsdon Town) services used the same platform as the Victoria to London Bridge services, and the Epsom and Caterham/Tattenham Corner services are now interworked and run from the same platform, whereas they used to use separate platforms, plus there are other peak extras which no longer exist.

To quote you, what I am effectively proposing is that GTR do a "magic trick" and divert the Peterborough to Horsham services down the Quarry Line to Gatwick Airport, then run the Horsham via Redhill service into P10-15 at London Bridge. I can't understand why I am being ridiculed for having a relatively simple, workable idea to increase Thameslink services to Gatwick Airport, which you were saying would be much more useful than additional services to Victoria.

 

[Minstral25]

To quote you, what I am effectively proposing is that GTR do a "magic trick" and divert the Peterborough to Horsham services down the Quarry Line to Gatwick Airport, then run the Horsham via Redhill service into P10-15 at London Bridge. I can't understand why I am being ridiculed for having a relatively simple, workable idea to increase Thameslink services to Gatwick Airport, which you were saying would be much more useful than additional services to Victoria.

You would get some serious upset along the Redhill route for doing that. Here are some reasons why.

First the 9J Peterborough train is the more reliable Thameslink train as the 9R Bedford is regularly disrupted.

Second, neither train serves all stations, there is an alternate stopping pattern that allows trains to get to Redhill (the biggest station by far) faster. You would need the Thameslink train that remains to become an all-station train slowing the service to London Bridge and Thameslink.

Third, the 4 trains per hour through Redhill are very well used to Thameslink stations (Blackfriars, City, Farringdon and St Pancras - added together have higher numbers from Redhill route than London Bridge alone) and passenger numbers to these stations are rising at double the rate of London Bridge alone. Thus, Redhill route needs 4 trains per hour to Thameslink as the services are being used.

Fourth, there is no demand for 2 more services from Three Bridges to Horsham, nor I believe the space to fit them, so your new service would not run from London Bridge through the Redhill route to Horsham but would need to find a new terminus somewhere. [Peterborough service is run from trains that overnight is Horsham and use Horsham crew, so you'd have to still run them to Horsham, but also same problem where to stop if alternatively cut back]

This fourth issue also creates a problem if there is no longer a Redhill to Horsham service as Redhill is an employment hub for Crawley and Horsham plus vice versa for the whole Redhill route so a through service between these stations is important.

The only way around this is to create an additional service through the core. This must be possible, but it requires another destination to lose its current Thameslink service.

 

[London Trains]

Deleted

 

[devon_belle]

News outlets reporting yesterday that the legal challenge failed and the second runway will go ahead. The government expects 100,000 extra flights per year, which is an increase by more than a third. So we will find out how the railway copes...

The runway is due to open by 2030, which compounded with other crowding issues on the GTR network (some being discussed in the 458/4 thread) could lead to quite a lot of strain on already full non-Gatwick Express services.

Gatwick to open second runway as government wins legal challenge

From 2030, Gatwick Airport's expansion is expected to enable up to 100,000 additional flights a year, increasing passenger choice and boosting airline competition.

www.gov.uk

 

[AlastairFraser]

Maybe a GatEx takeover of the North Downs Line (NDL) from GWR as part of expansion would be a good idea to help direct west/south of London traffic via the NDL.
Gatwick itself could perhaps pay for new bi-modes, and the route doesn't really fit in GWR's portfolio anyway (although I'm aware GBR plans to deal with the melee of franchised TOCs anyway).
Then, if it was successful, you could perhaps consider a 3rd route stopping Ashford - Paddock Wood - Tonbridge, then all stops to Gatwick with a low speed curve avoiding Redhill?

 

[TattenhamCnr]

Would it be worth exploring the possibility of new services using the North Downs line if a third train per hour could be introduced? One option which might make sense is Woking, using Platform 6.

Would such a service be operationally possible? Would it make sense considering the number of stations which serve Woking but not either Guildford or Reading? Would another destination make more sense?

 

[cle]

I'm not sure what more can be added - the biggest Gatwick capacity project would be Windmill, tbh!

There is a platform 8 road and face on the platform 7 island (admittedly the new escalator is right there - so it might need to be shorter trains at the country end, ie used like a bay, even if a through road operationally...)

Maybe the Redhill-Tonbridge service should go to Gatwick to add some Kent connectivity, and up to Strood - like the old days. It has little connection into Kent - certainly compared to Sussex and Surrey.

For London services - there are unused Southern/London Bridge terminator paths - - - which could be additional shuttles. And of course, everything will need to be as long as possible.

For North Downs - 3tph was reshaped to 2tph to Gatwick skip stop... but maybe one day there could be another hourly (could also use P8 'bay')

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe a GatEx takeover of the North Downs Line (NDL) from GWR as part of expansion would be a good idea to help direct west/south of London traffic via the NDL.
Gatwick itself could perhaps pay for new bi-modes, and the route doesn't really fit in GWR's portfolio anyway (although I'm aware GBR plans to deal with the melee of franchised TOCs anyway).
Then, if it was successful, you could perhaps consider a 3rd route stopping Ashford - Paddock Wood - Tonbridge, then all stops to Gatwick with a low speed curve avoiding Redhill?

Gatwick will have approximately zero interest in paying for any of this. Have a look at a map of Redhill and then you’ll see there is nothing simple about building a new railway there. It would be horrendously expensive and serve no purpose for the peole of Redhill. And why would Gatwick pay for new trains now when Government will be pating for new trains in the next deacde anyway?

Gatwick have their planning consent for expansion, with no conditions for funding rail.

 

[NCT]

Predictably people are spouting their pet projects:

- Redhill vs Quarry line deservedness
- London Bridge vs Thameslink Core
- North of River destinations

None of these is relevant whatsoever.

 

[Magdalia]

This is the BBC report on the approval of the expansion plans by the Transport Secretary in September 2025.

Gatwick airport second runway approved by transport secretary

There has been strong opposition against the airport wanting to use its northern runway.

www.bbc.co.uk

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has approved plans for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport, as the government looks for economic growth opportunities.

The £2.2bn privately-financed project involves in effect moving the current Northern Runway 12 metres to bring it into regular use, as well as other developments, including extending the size of terminals.

The report says this about public transport (my bold):

In April, Gatwick Airport agreed to stricter noise controls, an enhanced insulation scheme for nearby residents, and having 54% of air passengers using public transport before the Northern Runway opened.

Under the new terms of the Gatwick expansion, if the target for passengers travelling by public transport is not met, then the number of passenger trips to the airport by road must be below 24 million a year.

Gatwick are talking about delivering the new runway by 2030. There is no prospect of the railway delivering significant new infrastructure in that timescale, even if it had the money to pay for it. Everyone can put their crayons back in the box.

The railway is going to have to make best use of the infrastructure and capacity that it already has.

 

[London Trains]

Predictably people are spouting their pet projects:

- Redhill vs Quarry line deservedness
- London Bridge vs Thameslink Core
- North of River destinations

None of these is relevant whatsoever.

Actually these things are all completely relevant when you consider that services to Gatwick Airport need to be improved within the constraints of the existing infrastructure (in the medium term future at least).

 

[cle]

I would say that evening out fares across all operators to Victoria, and those being identical for all Z1 stations (ie lower GatEx services to Southern fares) - would have a big impact in sharing out existing capacity. And adding Clapham Junction calls to all of those. That it is probably the biggest.

Then, look at getting back to max reliable paths through the BML / Windmill, and what those could look like.

Kent and North Downs services are quirky and interesting - I love the growth of non-London routes especially with underused infrastructure such as Redhill-Strood/Ashford but London will have the numbers.

 

[devon_belle]

I would be in favour of running 2 tph Gatwick Express to Victoria, and 2 tph to London Bridge, if there are paths. Fares should definitely equalised, preferably actually subsidised via the segregated gatelines to prioritise airport passengers. It would be nice to split Brighton–Victoria from Gatwick Express by taking 2 of the 4 (upcoming) Victoria-Gatwick paths and redesignating it as Southern with the normal calls, then onto Brighton as now.

The elephant in the room here is stock, which Southern seems unable to make any meaningful gains on because Southeastern are trying to get rid of their 465/6s the same way Southern got rid of their 313s and 455s. There must be some very key stakeholders in the SE of London and Kent.

I'd love to see improvements to North Downs etc but I don't think Gatwick expansion is the impetus that will drive this. I don't think there is some huge untapped market; most people from Guildford probably drive, and many from beyond would use Heathrow. But maybe there is data I haven't seen.

 

[NCT]

Gatwick - London passenger distribution isn't that complicated. It just needs politicians who are not frit.

The biggest problem is the Thameslink vs Southern differential fares politicians were too scared to equalise. Having dedicated airport capacity and airport trains is a good thing - it's a simple matter of setting economic parameters at optimal levels.

 

[Snow1964]

Serious question, if can't get more trains, would it be possible to have longer trains to some destinations. Even some limited stop trains serving say max 5 stations, So only had to modify a handful of stations and some stabling. Could a few station throats be modified to take 14, 15 or 16 car trains

I know historically Southern tended to be about 245m platforms, but many intercity services are nearer 261m (2 x 5car IET) or 265 (11car 390) and use 270-300m platforms.

I am sure the platforms at Victoria were shortened few decades ago, so could they be lengthened again?

 

[JonathanH]

Serious question, if can't get more trains, would it be possible to have longer trains to some destinations. Even some limited stop trains serving say max 5 stations, So only had to modify a handful of stations and some stabling. Could a few station throats be modified to take 14, 15 or 16 car trains

I think the answer is no. Although the Brighton Line is set up around 240m trains, the pointwork is often close to the platform ends. Doesn't seem obvious that the money would be available, or as importantly, the space.

 

[35B]

I think the answer is no. Although the Brighton Line is set up around 240m trains, the pointwork is often close to the platform ends. Doesn't seem obvious that the money would be available, or as importantly, the space.

Not to mention that the reason that the "proper" Gatwick Express was pulled was the feeling that it ate into capacity on the Brighton Main Line by relying on dedicated paths, stock and platforms.

 

[devon_belle]

Serious question, if can't get more trains, would it be possible to have longer trains to some destinations. Even some limited stop trains serving say max 5 stations, So only had to modify a handful of stations and some stabling. Could a few station throats be modified to take 14, 15 or 16 car trains

I know historically Southern tended to be about 245m platforms, but many intercity services are nearer 261m (2 x 5car IET) or 265 (11car 390) and use 270-300m platforms.

I am sure the platforms at Victoria were shortened few decades ago, so could they be lengthened again?

16 car trains into Victoria is mentioned on one of the route studies as a way to get more capacity on the Brighton Mainline, but the downside is blocking the throat. I doubt such long trains could go to Brighton either.

P19 could possibly be extended but I'm unsure if by enough. Alternatively demolish Wetherspoons, elevate the concourse and extend P8-13. Would be a shame though.