• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,613
Location
Taunton or Kent
Out of interest, why do you think it was pointless? It saves major disruption about twice a month.
Can you explain this further please (I assume twice a month is average and not because it's linked to spring tides)? I think it's pointless because changeover was already taking place at Farringdon, and there have been incidents before of pantographs not being dropped leaving City Thameslink for Blackfriars, unless twice a month there were comparable incidents leaving Farringdon?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
36,005
Can you explain this further please (I assume twice a month is average and not because it's linked to spring tides)? I think it's pointless because changeover was already taking place at Farringdon, and there have been incidents before of pantographs not being dropped leaving City Thameslink for Blackfriars, unless twice a month there were comparable incidents leaving Farringdon?

Before 2009, if a southbound train didn’t / couldn’t change over at Farringdon, it stayed on AC, went to Moorgate and terminated there, out the way. That’s not an option now, and with the much higher frequency and closing up signals commissioned in 2011 there is very likley to be a train behind to stop a reversal.

So if the changeover doesn’t happen at Farringdon, the driver calls the signaller, then proceeds to City TL, tries again, and if that doesn‘t work the train comes out of service, back north on the southbound line and through the crossover between City TL and Farringdon (all on AC), then to Hornsey / Cricklewood. The signaller will have set signals to prevent a following southbound train leaving Farringdon, to leave the route clear for the failure to traverse through the crossover.

Similar principle northbound, pre 2009 a failure to switch to AC at Farringdon meant heading back south through the scissors that used to be at the north end of City TL, all on DC. But now with intermediate signals there would be a train in the way, so the changeover is done at City TL, and same procedure if it doesn’t work (forward to Farringdon for second attempt, nothing allowed up behind, if 2nd attempt fails, out of service back through the crossover and cars to Three Bridges)

This procedure is invoked about twice a month on average. More often DC>AC, and typically due to things caught in the panwell. Without this procedure, the core would be blocked until fitters could attend and fix.
 
Last edited:

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,613
Location
Taunton or Kent
Before 2009, if a southbound train didn’t couldn’t change over at Farringdon, it stayed on AC, went to Moorgate and terminated there, out the way. That’s not an option now, and witht the much higher frequency and closing up signals commissioned in 2011 there is bery likley to be a train behind to stop a reversal.

So if the changeover doesn’t happen at Farringdon, the driver calls the signaller, then proceeds to City TL, tries again, and if that doesnt work the train comes out of service, back north on the southbound line and through the crossover between City TL and Farringdon (all on AC), then to Hornsey / Cricklewood.m(The signaller will have set signals to prevent a following southbound train leaving Farringdon, to leave the route clear for the failure to traverse through the crossover.

Similar principle northbound, pre 2009 a failure to switch to AC at Farringdon meant heading back south through the scissors that used to be at the north end of City TL, all on DC. But now with intermediate signals there would be a train in the way, so the changeover is done at City TL, and same procedure if it doesn’t work (forward to Farringdon for second attempt, nothing allowed up behind, if 2nd attempt fails, out of service back through the crossover and cars to Three Bridges)

This procedure is invoked about twice a month on average. More often DC>AC, and typically due to things caught in the panwell. Without this procedure, the core would be blocked until fitters could attend and fix.
Thank you for this, a changeover being a potential source of unit failure didn't cross my mind.
 

London Trains

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
1,241
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.
Is this really an issue (that can't easily be resolved), particularily given that in the morning peak from December, nearly all the Thameslink services from Horsham will go to Bedford, and the Peterborough services will start at Three Bridges?

If this can be solved, then the Bedford services running through to Horsham seems to be a good solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Something else to add, starting the Peterborough services from Three Bridges would allow them to stay on the slow lines through East Croydon, removing the remaining conflicting movement at Stoats Nest Junction. This would be done by running the Eastbourne/Ore to Victoria services 3 minutes earlier between Gatwick and Victoria (they have a 4 minute dwell at Gatwick) and running the East Grinstead to Victoria services 4 minutes later throughout. This can't be done currently as it would need to run earlier between Horsham and Three Bridges (as running the service on the slows means it would have to run earlier between Horsham and Coulsdon South), which conflicts with the fast Victoria services.

In terms of pathing, it means the Eastbourne and East Grinstead services swap paths between Windmill Bridge and Victoria, the Eastbourne takes the path of the Horsham to Peterborough service on the fasts between Stoats Nest and Windmill Bridge, the Three Bridges to Peterborough takes the path of the East Grinstead service between South Croydon and Windmill Bridge, and the East Grinstead service uses a vacant path between South Croydon and Windmill Bridge, and doesn't conflict with anything at Selhurst as it would have a parallel move with the Victoria to Reigate service.
 
Last edited:

Baji

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2023
Messages
68
Location
Sutton
I understand there is a proposal of doubling services to/from Belmont from 2tph to 4tph by extending the London Victoria to West Croydon services to Belmont and also building a new platform for that. Building a platform is beneficial however I feel 4 services per hour between London Victoria and Belmont could still be achieved.
Xx00/xx30 London Victoria to Epsom downs due 1 hour late will arrive at Belmont at xx22/52
Xx50/xx20 London Victoria to Belmont would arrive at Belmont at xx26/xx56 and leave Belmont at xx05/xx35 towards London Victoria via Crystal Palace and then the xx08/xx38 Epsom downs to London Victoria will depart Belmont at xx15/xx45.
the only thing is the London Victoria to Belmont would only be able to run up to 8 carriages as that station has a short platform. So I see no reason why they really need to wait at December 2027 for these changes, it could happen without the building new platform.
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,139
Location
Selhurst
I understand there is a proposal of doubling services to/from Belmont from 2tph to 4tph by extending the London Victoria to West Croydon services to Belmont and also building a new platform for that. Building a platform is beneficial however I feel 4 services per hour between London Victoria and Belmont could still be achieved.
Xx00/xx30 London Victoria to Epsom downs due 1 hour late will arrive at Belmont at xx22/52
Xx50/xx20 London Victoria to Belmont would arrive at Belmont at xx26/xx56 and leave Belmont at xx05/xx35 towards London Victoria via Crystal Palace and then the xx08/xx38 Epsom downs to London Victoria will depart Belmont at xx15/xx45.
the only thing is the London Victoria to Belmont would only be able to run up to 8 carriages as that station has a short platform. So I see no reason why they really need to wait at December 2027 for these changes, it could happen without the building new platform.
They’re not building a new platform. They’re extending Platform 1 to 10 coaches solving the problem that you describe and upgrading the signalling to allow another 2tph to use the single track.

The Network Rail page about the project seems to have updated now saying that 4tph will commence from Early 2028 instead.
 

London Trains

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
1,241
They’re not building a new platform. They’re extending Platform 1 to 10 coaches solving the problem that you describe and upgrading the signalling to allow another 2tph to use the single track.

The Network Rail page about the project seems to have updated now saying that 4tph will commence from Early 2028 instead.
Interesting that the plan to construct a reversing siding south of the station has silently been removed.

With the Victoria to West Croydon (Belmont eventually) services becoming self-contained from December, I wonder if they might reduce the service to 6 coaches and increase the London Bridge to East Croydon/Beckenham Junction to 8 coaches. In terms of demand it would probably make sense to do so.
 

Thebaz

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2016
Messages
498
Location
Purley
Interesting that the plan to construct a reversing siding south of the station has silently been removed.

With the Victoria to West Croydon (Belmont eventually) services becoming self-contained from December, I wonder if they might reduce the service to 6 coaches and increase the London Bridge to East Croydon/Beckenham Junction to 8 coaches. In terms of demand it would probably make sense to do so.
Will these extended trains be used to increase service frequency at Waddon, Wallington and Carshalton Beeches or will they just run fast to Sutton, then Belmont. If the part of the reasoning for this work is to improve access to the Royal Marsden, you'd think skipping stations on the way would be nonsensicle?
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,139
Location
Selhurst
Will these extended trains be used to increase service frequency at Waddon, Wallington and Carshalton Beeches or will they just run fast to Sutton, then Belmont. If the part of the reasoning for this work is to improve access to the Royal Marsden, you'd think skipping stations on the way would be nonsensicle?
Stop-skipping would not be viable, at least in the down direction, as it would be 4 minutes behind the Epsom Downs service leaving West Croydon.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,686
Stop-skipping would not be viable, at least in the down direction, as it would be 4 minutes behind the Epsom Downs service leaving West Croydon.
So there will be a Belmont right behind an Epsom Downs? Is one going via Crystal Palace? Seems odd otherwise - but if that is how it has to be (I guess makes sense re turning at Belmont before the ED service returns!) - then maybe the Epsom Downs service could be fast if running in front, and the Belmont does the interim calls.

Any hope of the Epsom-London Bridge going into Thameslink?
 

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
1,070
Location
Denmark
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.
You could perhaps let the trains run nonstop between London Bridge and St Pancras to give some leeway?
 

London Trains

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
1,241
So there will be a Belmont right behind an Epsom Downs? Is one going via Crystal Palace? Seems odd otherwise - but if that is how it has to be (I guess makes sense re turning at Belmont before the ED service returns!) - then maybe the Epsom Downs service could be fast if running in front, and the Belmont does the interim calls.

Any hope of the Epsom-London Bridge going into Thameslink?
I don't think the the Epsom Downs could run fast without a major timetable rewrite, as the services in each direction pass each other at Sutton just before/after the single line. The timetable is likely to become very fragile with Belmont terminators, as services terminating at Belmont will be blocking the entire branch.

London Bridge to Epsom becoming a Thameslink service is a very bad idea in my opinion, its currently quite reliable and it's nearly certain that its reliabilty would be completely wrecked if it became a Thameslink service, particularly given the fact its timetabled in a particular way, in order for it to (nearly) have a parallel movement across the junction at Sutton, and it has a minimum 6 minute turnaround at Epsom. Also not to mention that, despite the fact a 700 has more standing space than a 377, any suggestion of downgrading the service from 10 to 8 coaches is completely untenable.
 

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
1,070
Location
Denmark
When it runs non-stop, does it get to overtake the trains that do stop?!
The point isn't neccesarilly to provide a faster service. It's just so that the longer dwell times don't delay other trains in the core. A bit like why alot of trains don't stop at Deansgate in Manchester.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
31,010
Location
UK
The point isn't neccesarilly to provide a faster service. It's just so that the longer dwell times don't delay other trains in the core. A bit like why alot of trains don't stop at Deansgate in Manchester.

Nobody can seriously think that a train service going through the core is going to skip a station like St Pancras International or Farringdon! Given it's going to have to stop anyway due to all the other trains that will stop, you'll be getting people egressing themselves all the time.

It won't work. It can't work.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,766
Location
Ilfracombe
I wonder if Peterborough-Horsham services should run nonstop between East Croydon and Gatwick via the Quarry Line, with the 2tph Victoria-Gatwick non-stop shuttles becoming a stopper via Redhill.
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,139
Location
Selhurst
I wonder if Peterborough-Horsham services should run nonstop between East Croydon and Gatwick via the Quarry Line, with the 2tph Victoria-Gatwick non-stop shuttles becoming a stopper via Redhill.
Then Merstham and Coulsdon South would lose their core/London Bridge links and Redhill would get that service cut in half. If we were to divert the Victoria service to the slows I think it should probably be used to give a faster service to Redhill, or maybe add stops at South Croydon and Purley Oaks to restore some links, but all those goals seem to contradict one another.
 

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
1,070
Location
Denmark
Nobody can seriously think that a train service going through the core is going to skip a station like St Pancras International or Farringdon! Given it's going to have to stop anyway due to all the other trains that will stop, you'll be getting people egressing themselves all the time.

It won't work. It can't work.
I mean it’s only if we use Class 387’s. By skipping stations in the core you can save a bit of time to allow for a longer dwell at St Pancras. It’s the same thing the peak time fast services do on the Elizabeth Line do. They run nonstop between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton because it’s the only way it will fit into the pathing.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,449
Location
The Fens
I mean it’s only if we use Class 387’s. By skipping stations in the core you can save a bit of time to allow for a longer dwell at St Pancras.
No you can't. There will need to be at least 2 core stops for passengers, with extended dwell times. But the killer is the longer time needed for the voltage changeover.

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

It’s the same thing the peak time fast services do on the Elizabeth Line do. They run nonstop between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton because it’s the only way it will fit into the pathing.
It isn't the same. Between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton is more than 7 miles with 3 intermediate stations. the Thameslink core between London Bridge and St Pancras is just over 3 miles with 3 intermediate stations. Elizabeth Line trains don't have to do a voltage change at Southall. Between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton has 12tph in the peaks whereas the Thameslink core is 20tph in the peaks. All of those differences matter a lot.
 
Last edited:

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
1,070
Location
Denmark
No you can't. There will need to be at least 2 core stops for passengers, with extended dwell times. But the killer is the longer time needed for the voltage changeover.




It isn't the same. Between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton is more than 7 miles with 3 intermediate stations. the Thameslink core between London Bridge and St Pancras is just over 3 miles with 3 intermediate stations. Elizabeth Line trains don't have to do a voltage change at Southall. Between Ealing Broadway and West Drayton has 12tph in the peaks whereas the Thameslink core is 20tph in the peaks. All of those differences matter a lot.
Well then your going to have to use Class 700's for this brand new Luton Airport - Gatwick Airport express.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,908
"A certain proportion of services must be 700s by *date*.

ALL services must be 700s by *date*."

That was the specification by DfT when tendering for the TSGN management contract which was won by Govia. I don't think it will be as easy to arrange for 387s to provide services again as some people think.
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
4,209
Location
North London or Mildmay line
I don’t see why Luton - Gatwick services wouldn’t be operated by Class 700s.
Because they are completely unsuitable and 387s would work far better?

I cannot understand why 387s wouldn't be able to be used for this. Dwell times on Thameslink in the core are booked to be a minute but never is this full amount of time needed - a 387 could easily do this in 1 minute.

Okay, a slightly longer voltage change time. How much longer? Because I don’t personally believe this is a showstopper.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Because they are 700s.
Thats not a good enough reason. The 387s worked this route for years and they didn’t take over a minute for a passenger stop, which is also the amount of time allowed for all passenger stops in the core.

How much do you think the 387s have collapsed in the last ~10 years that they can’t do this anymore?
Dwells on the 387s at voltage changeover were never less than 75sec, and often nearer 2mins.
Okay, so let’s say a minute and a half to timetable. This is still absolutely doable.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,766
Location
Ilfracombe
Then Merstham and Coulsdon South would lose their core/London Bridge links and Redhill would get that service cut in half. If we were to divert the Victoria service to the slows I think it should probably be used to give a faster service to Redhill, or maybe add stops at South Croydon and Purley Oaks to restore some links, but all those goals seem to contradict one another.
The primary purpose would be to make the journey time between London and stations south of Gatwick 14 minutes faster on the Peterborough-Horsham service. The potential to create a new optimised timetable around this pattern should be able to provide Horsham and Crawley something close an effective every 15 minute service to London rather than the present service where the Thameslink service seems too slow to be particularly useful for London journeys.

But this is just an idea.
 

Top