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

[Mgameing123]

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

Is it possible when the upgrades around ECR are complete?

 

[Magdalia]

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

I support simplification of Thameslink, and I hope that Rainham is standing on the trapdoor.

But Sutton will stay. To see why, spend an evening peak watching southbound trains through the core, the most crowded trains are the Sutton loop.

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

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

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

East Grinstead can't be considered in isolation from Uckfield, which has to go to London Bridge not Victoria.

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

With airport expansion coming, Gatwick is going to need an increase in Thameslink trains to/from the core, not a reduction.

 

[JonathanH]

Is it possible when the upgrades around ECR are complete?

There is no plan to start those upgrades though, and it was a ten year project, so it is some way in the future, if ever.

 

[Mgameing123]

There is no plan to start those upgrades though, and it was a ten year project, so it is some way in the future, if ever.

Well they will have to happen at some point. Demand is only going to increase.

 

[brad465]

I don't know what is possible, but the Sevenoaks-Blackfriars' services could do with better pathing. Currently a train spends almost half an hour occupying the Sevenoaks' platform it is dedicated, and in the up direction a Gillingham-Victoria service gets stuck behind it to the point it has 8 minutes of pathing allowance. Outside of peaks it doesn't go through the core so at least that doesn't complicate things. There will be reasons for this setup (including decent pathing with the Maidstone East line services) but it does feel like something needs reworking.

 

[Farigiraf]

East Grinstead can't be considered in isolation from Uckfield, which has to go to London Bridge not Victoria.

Could this change once the 171s get replaced? I know currently it's not a good idea to run DMUs into the covered platforms at Victoria but there may be other reasons why it's not a good idea. Running a longer-distance service from Uckfield into LBG, which is primarily used for Southern local services, rather than Victoria, has always seemed more like a compromise than an ideal solution.

 

[jon0844]

I don't know what is possible, but the Sevenoaks-Blackfriars' services could do with better pathing. Currently a train spends almost half an hour occupying the Sevenoaks' platform it is dedicated, and in the up direction a Gillingham-Victoria service gets stuck behind it to the point it has 8 minutes of pathing allowance. Outside of peaks it doesn't go through the core so at least that doesn't complicate things. There will be reasons for this setup (including decent pathing with the Maidstone East line services) but it does feel like something needs reworking.

There is a desire to run the Sevenoaks trains up to WGC all day, every day, which would solve that issue and also give Ashford drivers more jobs.

 

[westcoaster]

I personally would merge both the Gatwick express and Luton airport express into a through service (Think Corby to Gatwick Airport as the service pattern, using the dual voltage 387's and allow them to run at 110mph) to achieve this id remove the Rainham service pattern north of London Bridge, and possible run the Northbound (9R ) in its path and stopping pattern.

 

[Kite159]

I personally would merge both the Gatwick express and Luton airport express into a through service (Think Corby to Gatwick Airport as the service pattern, using the dual voltage 387's and allow them to run at 110mph) to achieve this id remove the Rainham service pattern north of London Bridge, and possible run the Northbound (9R ) in its path and stopping pattern.

I can't see anything other than 700s working passenger services within the Thameslink Core.

-----

As for Thameslink to Rainham, I would cut it back to Dartford and instead extend one of the South Eastern Dartford terminators towards Rainham instead [or even extend one of the Gravesend terminators to Rainham with a Dartford terminator extended to Gravesend etc]

 

[JonathanH]

I personally would merge both the Gatwick express and Luton airport express into a through service (Think Corby to Gatwick Airport as the service pattern, using the dual voltage 387's and allow them to run at 110mph) to achieve this id remove the Rainham service pattern north of London Bridge, and possible run the Northbound (9R ) in its path and stopping pattern.

Putting 387s through the Thameslink core isn't going to be ideal in any way. Would it not be better to simply upgrade part of the 700 fleet if some sort of express service from Gatwick Airport to Corby is appropriate? What do you actually have in mind? Would it still stop at East Croydon? Gatwick, fast to London Bridge, all stops to St Pancras, fast to Luton Airport Parkway, then Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby?

Then the 9R on the slow to Luton? Does that mean cutting faster services at stations between St Albans and Bedford?

 

[Baji]

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

The suggestion would be that Salfords and Earlswood would be served by half hourly Peterborough to Horsham service in addition to the hourly Bedford to three bridges services.
This was my vision of the Thameslink service routes effecting the South.

2tph Cambridge to Brighton
Calling at Royston, Ashwell &Morden, Baldock, Letcheorth Garden City, Hitchin, Stevenage, Finsbury Park, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Balcombe, Haywards Heath, Wivelesfield, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park and Brighton

2tph Bedford to Brighton
Calling at Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, West Hampstead Thameslink, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, East Croydon, Purley, Redhill, Horley, Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and Brighton

2tph Peterborough to Horsham
Calling at Huntingdon, St Neots, Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlessy, Hitchin, Stevenage, Finsbury Park, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Purley, Coulsdon South, Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick Aipirt, Three Bridges, Crawley, Ifield, Littlehaven and Horsham

1tph Bedford to East Grinstead (2tph during peak hours)
Calling at Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, West Hampstead Thameslink, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, East Croydon, South Croydon, Sanderstead, Riddlesdown, Upper Warlingham, Woldingham, Oxted, Hurst Green, Lingfield, Dormans and East Grinstead

1tph Bedford to Three Bridges (2tph during peak hours)
Calling at Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden, St Albans, West Hampstead Thameslink, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, Norwood Junction, East Croydon, South Croydon, Purley, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick Aipirt and Three Bridges

 

[JonathanH]

2tph Peterborough to Horsham
Calling at Huntingdon, St Neots, Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlessy, Hitchin, Stevenage, Finsbury Park, London St Pancreas International, Farringdon, City Thameslink, London Blackfriars, London Bridge, Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Purley, Coulsdon South, Merstham, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick Aipirt, Three Bridges, Crawley, Ifield, Littlehaven and Horsham

There isn't enough time at Horsham to put all the extra stops in those services. Something would have to give.

The problem is that Horsham has the sidings, and driver depot, so the Peterborough trains need to work through, but equally it needs a robust turnaround. Putting Purley, Earlswood and Salfords in doesn't leave time for the reversal.

Are you intending for the current Victoria to East Grinstead service to be reduced to 1tph?

 

[Baji]

There isn't enough time at Horsham to put all the extra stops in those services. Something would have to give.

The problem is that Horsham has the sidings, and driver depot, so the Peterborough trains need to work through, but equally it needs a robust turnaround. Putting Purley, Earlswood and Salfords in doesn't leave time for the reversal.

Are you intending for the current Victoria to East Grinstead service to be reduced to 1tph?

On weekdays, the journey time ok a direct Thameslink service between London Bridge and Horsham during off peak is 1 hour 10 mins. On a Saturday where it stops at all those additional stops, the direct journey time is 1 hour 11 mins London Bridge to Horsham- so it must travel at a higher speed to make up for it.

 

[JonathanH]

On weekdays, the journey time between London Bridge and Horsham is 1 hour 10 mins. On a Saturday where it stops at all those additional stops, the journey time is 1 hour 11 mins London Bridge to Horsham

I agree there is a bit of slack on the southbound between Norwood Junction and East Croydon, and a dwell at Redhill, the weekday morning peak demonstrates that, when it seems that Horsham is reached in 1 hour 14 minutes with all the stops.

Not so sure it works northbound though, as the Arun Valley departs just ahead of the current Horsham departure. It is 1 hour 5 minutes northbound to London Bridge currently.

 

[bramling]

There isn't enough time at Horsham to put all the extra stops in those services. Something would have to give.

The problem is that Horsham has the sidings, and driver depot, so the Peterborough trains need to work through, but equally it needs a robust turnaround. Putting Purley, Earlswood and Salfords in doesn't leave time for the reversal.

I’m not necessarily advocating doing it, however one of the problems with Peterborough-Horsham is that it doesn’t have enough time at each ends, and other forms of recovery lead to bad outcomes. So if extra stops slow it down enough that it requires an extra unit and turnround at the Horsham end, then this could actually prove beneficial. The Horsham end in any event has a faster Victoria service so slowing the journey down isn’t the end of the world for Horsham-Three Bridges passengers.

I haven’t looked to see how it would work on paper though, it may have too many consequential issues.

 

[brad465]

I can't see anything other than 700s working passenger services within the Thameslink Core.

Ever since the (IMO pointless) extension of OHLE through City Thameslink, are any other EMUs allowed through the core now?

As for Thameslink to Rainham, I would cut it back to Dartford and instead extend one of the South Eastern Dartford terminators towards Rainham instead [or even extend one of the Gravesend terminators to Rainham with a Dartford terminator extended to Gravesend etc]

If extending an existing Gravesend terminator, I'd go for the Sidcup Line, as the Victoria-Gravesend going to Rainham would cause confusion in the Medway core with all the mainline Victoria services. The North Kent line probably still needs a Gravesend direct minimum thanks to the Elizabeth line, so either extend one of the Dartford terminators to Gravesend, or go back to pre-2018 with Southeastern to Rainham via Woolwich, but from Cannon St.

Out of interest what led to Sevenoaks via Catford being a long-standing Thameslink-stock route? It's an outlier relative to Brighton & Sutton routes, but it dates back all the way to early 319 days (besides a number of years various Southeastern franchises did it).

 

[Instinct04]

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

Could they not have terminated the service somewhere else closer to London? Then at least the service could be extended to Luton again and allow the likes Brent Cross West and co 6tph next year.

 

[JonathanH]

Ever since the (IMO pointless) extension of OHLE through City Thameslink, are any other EMUs allowed through the core now?

387s still go through there, but not with passengers on board, nor at times when it would disrupt the service - for example this path is in the timetable with one the other way but not sure when it was last used https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C00660/2026-09-11/detailed

 

[Richardr]

I personally would merge both the Gatwick express and Luton airport express into a through service (Think Corby to Gatwick Airport as the service pattern, using the dual voltage 387's and allow them to run at 110mph) to achieve this id remove the Rainham service pattern north of London Bridge, and possible run the Northbound (9R ) in its path and stopping pattern.

How many people are going directly from Gatwick to Luton Airport, as opposed to those who would be disadvantaged by removing a Thameslink service even if just every 30 minutes? Of those, how many really gain by the small reduction in time between the two as opposed to today?

As an aside to this, aren't the Thameslink to London Bridge trains as quick as if not quicker and cheaper than the Gatwick Express today?

 

[A S Leib]

How many people are going directly from Gatwick to Luton Airport, as opposed to those who would be disadvantaged by removing a Thameslink service even if just every 30 minutes?

I'd have thought that the main advantage would have been being able to have trains with more luggage space dedicated to airport express services, though the (slight, if wanting to keep those units on airport services) loss of flexibility with diagrams may make that undesirable.

 

[JonathanH]

How many people are going directly from Gatwick to Luton Airport, as opposed to those who would be disadvantaged by removing a Thameslink service even if just every 30 minutes?

None, but Thameslink already market their links to Luton and Gatwick airport. Having a specific half hourly fast service from central London to both could be marketable in a way that Luton Airport Express may not be working for EMR.

As ever, however, I am not sure why people are so keen to downgrade Corby and Wellingborough's service to London to achieve this aim.

 

[SE%Traveller]

I don't know what is possible, but the Sevenoaks-Blackfriars' services could do with better pathing. Currently a train spends almost half an hour occupying the Sevenoaks' platform it is dedicated, and in the up direction a Gillingham-Victoria service gets stuck behind it to the point it has 8 minutes of pathing allowance. Outside of peaks it doesn't go through the core so at least that doesn't complicate things. There will be reasons for this setup (including decent pathing with the Maidstone East line services) but it does feel like something needs reworking.

This could be achieved by implementing the Sunday Timetable though Bromley South rather than the weekday. On Sunday the Thameslink runs 5 mins later, the Gillingham/ Dover Stopper 5 mins earlier ensuring the latter leaves ahead of the former and gets to Denmark Hill in 12 minutes rather than 20 as it does the rest of the week.

For this to work though the Sevenoaks Service would need to take over the Rainham path to Luton though with the Latter going to Southeastern. This would leave the Welwyn Service without a Southern destination. (Beckham Junction would work Northbound, not so well southbound)

Out of interest what led to Sevenoaks via Catford being a long-standing Thameslink-stock route? It's an outlier relative to Brighton & Sutton routes, but it dates back all the way to early 319 days (besides a number of years various Southeastern franchises did it).

The original off peak Thameslink Service back in 1988 included 2 tph Catford Loop trains (1 to Sevenoaks, 1 to Orpington) essentially replacing the Holborn Viaduct Services when that Station was demolished.

However back then it was the Holborn Slows (the Western Tracks) that went Northbound with the Fasts going into the bays, so to remove conflicts in the Blackfriars area it was easier to run the Catford Loop (and any Southeaster) service into the Bays. This was particularly relevant when during the Peak trains routed by London Bridge were (save 1) diverted via Herne Hill and the introduction of the Eurostar meant by 1994 18 TPH were going through Herne Hill (8 x SE, 7 x TL, 3 x Eurostar). There were 7 TPH going to Blackfriars via Denmark hill then

1998: Service:
2 TPH Cricklewood - Sevenoaks/ Orpington
2 TPH Luton (Stopping) - Purely (Stopping via Herne Hill)
2 TPH Bedford (Fast) - Gatwick/ Brighton (via London Bridge)

 

[Transilien]

Ever since the (IMO pointless) extension of OHLE through City Thameslink, are any other EMUs allowed through the core now?

(Off topic I know) Why was this done? Also are the 387s really that much slower than the 700s?

I personally would merge both the Gatwick express and Luton airport express into a through service (Think Corby to Gatwick Airport as the service pattern, using the dual voltage 387's and allow them to run at 110mph) to achieve this id remove the Rainham service pattern north of London Bridge, and possible run the Northbound (9R ) in its path and stopping pattern.

If this was ever to happen (it won’t), I’d extend the service to Brighton and refurbish the interior of the 387s to make them more appropriate long distance units (think class 170/379 comfort).

 

[westcoaster]

How many people are going directly from Gatwick to Luton Airport, as opposed to those who would be disadvantaged by removing a Thameslink service even if just every 30 minutes? Of those, how many really gain by the small reduction in time between the two as opposed to today?

As an aside to this, aren't the Thameslink to London Bridge trains as quick as if not quicker and cheaper than the Gatwick Express today?

I would remove the airport express handle and run it as a through service, it would free up both paths into London Victoria and St Pancras high level, the 387 could have the extra luggage space added to them for cases.
i wouldn't see it as travelling from one airport to the other, just connecting two service patterns by going through the core.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2026 ==

(Off topic I know) Why was this done? Also are the 387s really that much slower than the 700s?

If this was ever to happen (it won’t), I’d extend the service to Brighton and refurbish the interior of the 387s to make them more appropriate long distance units (think class 170/379 comfort).

387's have a higher top speed of 110MPH but is not used currently.

 

[Transilien]

387's have a higher top speed of 110MPH but is not used currently.

I was meaning in terms of acceleration through the core as the 387s aren’t specialist units for Thameslink. Would it destroy the timetable if they had to run with the 700s in the core? Of course, the 110mph top speed would be useful on the midland mainline.

 

[JonathanH]

387's have a higher top speed of 110MPH but is not used currently.

Presumably class 700s could run at 110mph as well if someone wanted to change their settings?

The key point about class 700s in the Thameslink core is dwell times, which a class 387, with suitcases involved, just couldn't match.

 

[Class15]

The key point about class 700s in the Thameslink core is dwell times, which a class 387, with suitcases involved, just couldn't match.

I’m unconvinced. Most times I travel through the core the train waits time at stations, as it’s arrived early. Even if not, all dwell times are 1 minute.

 

[JonathanH]

I’m unconvinced. Most times I travel through the core the train waits time at stations, as it’s arrived early. Even if not, all dwell times are 1 minute.

Isn't that because 700s are set up with passenger loading as a key consideration?

A more accurate comparison would be observing passenger loading experience of 12 car 387s and 12 car 700s at Gatwick.

 

[jon0844]

Dwell times on a 387 would be terrible in the peak compared to a 700, and then there's the not insignificant issue of accessibility. 700s have level access for the accessible coaches.

387s would need a ramp and for people to be at a totally different position on the platform, which would cause chaos. Especially if any one unit was in reverse formation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ever since the (IMO pointless) extension of OHLE through City Thameslink, are any other EMUs allowed through the core now?

Out of interest, why do you think it was pointless? It saves major disruption about twice a month.

I’m unconvinced. Most times I travel through the core the train waits time at stations, as it’s arrived early. Even if not, all dwell times are 1 minute.

Because they are 700s.

Dwells on the 387s at voltage changeover were never less than 75sec, and often nearer 2mins.