Changing (ruining) the Southeastern Metro timetabled services

[PTR 444]

I’m assuming fast services pick up. the calls at Chels, Knockholt and Sevenoaks?

Completely forgot about those! 2tph of my Cannon Street (or Charing Cross) to Orpington trains can extend to Sevenoaks, picking up those calls.

No direct services from Eltham to London Bridge is ridiculous and could never happen. 4 tph crossing from St Johns to Lewisham Down Mid Kent platform and Up Bexleyheath to Nunhead is also a lot of conflicts.

Could conflicts not be mitigated by sending London Bridge - Lewisham - Hither Green trains via the fast tracks, thus skipping St John’s?

Here is a revised proposal of mine, taking into account the above feedback:

• 4tph Cannon Street to Slade Green via Greenwich. 2tph continue to Dartford. 2tph continue to Charing Cross via Sidcup.
• 2tph Thameslink Luton to Rainham, via Greenwich.
• 4tph Cannon Street - Lewisham - Woolwich - Bexleyheath - Cannon Street rounder. 2tph clockwise and 2tph anticlockwise.
• 2tph Victoria - Gravesend via Bexleyheath
• 2tph Victoria - Dartford via Sidcup
• 4tph Charing Cross - Sidcup, skipping Lewisham. 2tph continue to Gravesend. 2tph continue to Cannon Street via Slade Green.
• 4tph Charing Cross - Orpington. 2tph skip Lewisham and continue to Sevenoaks.
• 4tph Charing Cross - Hayes. 2tph skip Lewisham
• 4tph Bromley North shuttle
• 4tph Thameslink via Catford
• 4tph Victoria - Orpington

 

[NorthKent1989]

Completely forgot about those! 2tph of my Cannon Street (or Charing Cross) to Orpington trains can extend to Sevenoaks, picking up those calls.

Could conflicts not be mitigated by sending London Bridge - Lewisham - Hither Green trains via the fast tracks, thus skipping St John’s?

Here is a revised proposal of mine, taking into account the above feedback:

• 4tph Cannon Street to Slade Green via Greenwich. 2tph continue to Dartford. 2tph continue to Charing Cross via Sidcup.
• 2tph Thameslink Luton to Rainham, via Greenwich.
• 4tph Cannon Street - Lewisham - Woolwich - Bexleyheath - Cannon Street rounder. 2tph clockwise and 2tph anticlockwise.
• 2tph Victoria - Gravesend via Bexleyheath
• 2tph Victoria - Dartford via Sidcup
• 4tph Charing Cross - Sidcup, skipping Lewisham. 2tph continue to Gravesend. 2tph continue to Cannon Street via Slade Green.
• 4tph Charing Cross - Orpington. 2tph skip Lewisham and continue to Sevenoaks.
• 4tph Charing Cross - Hayes. 2tph skip Lewisham
• 4tph Bromley North shuttle
• 4tph Thameslink via Catford
• 4tph Victoria - Orpington

The Thameslink Rainham service is utterly unreliable and should be removed from the SE metro network entirely, it offers nothing of value or benefit that the Elizabeth line in the Woolwich/Abbey Wood catchment area and HS1 in the Medway and Gravesend areas doesn’t give us already plus they’re much faster than Thameslink, whenever there is disruption to the Thameslink network, the Rainham service is the first to go, I’d replace this with a Victoria to Gillingham/Rainham service calling at the same stations as the old semi fasts after Charlton

 

[PTR 444]

The Thameslink Rainham service is utterly unreliable and should be removed from the SE metro network entirely, it offers nothing of value or benefit that the Elizabeth line in the Woolwich/Abbey Wood catchment area and HS1 in the Medway and Gravesend areas doesn’t give us already plus they’re much faster than Thameslink, whenever there is disruption to the Thameslink network, the Rainham service is the first to go, I’d replace this with a Victoria to Gillingham/Rainham service calling at the same stations as the old semi fasts after Charlton

I agree the Thameslink service doesn’t really add any connectivity opportunities for North Kent as these are already provided by the Elizabeth Line and HS1. The idea of sending a Victoria service semi-fast along the North Kent Line is interesting although I’d add calls at Peckham Rye and Nunhead so that Victoria - Lewisham has an even interval 4tph service. I wouldn’t extend it beyond Gravesend though. That would be better provided for by extending the Charing Cross - Gravesend via Sidcup service to Gillingham or Rainham, since that is the fastest service between London Bridge and Dartford.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I agree the Thameslink service doesn’t really add any connectivity opportunities for North Kent as these are already provided by the Elizabeth Line and HS1. The idea of sending a Victoria service semi-fast along the North Kent Line is interesting although I’d add calls at Peckham Rye and Nunhead so that Victoria - Lewisham has an even interval 4tph service. I wouldn’t extend it beyond Gravesend though. That would be better provided for by extending the Charing Cross - Gravesend via Sidcup service to Gillingham or Rainham, since that is the fastest service between London Bridge and Dartford.

I’d call it at Denmark Hill only as it has good connections plus Kings College Hospital, also I’d have 4tph Catford Loop Thameslink trains, and there would still be the Bexleyheath service calling at those stations too

Medway needs the fast connection to Abbey Wood for the EL hence why I’d have the semi fast continue there, you could possibly add 2tph Sidcup line trains in addition, but Medways flow these days is either HS1 or the EL at Abbey Wood.

Intermediate stations between Dartford, Greenhithe and Gravesend can be served by an CST-Greenwich-Gravesend stopper.

 

[158756]

I know people will complain about losing direct services, but many passengers in London will be making connections anyway to their preferred central destination. So why not simplify Southeastern as much as possible? Charing Cross/Cannon Street splits seem particularly unnecessary given the frequency to both and various City or West End tube stations from London Bridge.

What about -

6tph Cannon Street via Greenwich - 2tph to Cannon Street via Bexleyheath, 4tph to Rainham/Gravesend.
2tph Cannon Street via Lewisham-Woolwich to Gravesend
2tph Cannon Street to Dartford via Bexleyheath
4tph Victoria to Dartford via Sidcup
4tph Charing Cross to Hayes
4tph Charing Cross to Orpington/Sevenoaks via Lewisham
4tph Thameslink to Orpington/Sevenoaks (via Swanley) via the Catford loop
4tph Victoria to Orpington via Herne Hill

All services listed calling at all stations within Greater London - with the possible exception of some trains between Dartford and Abbey Wood for faster connections from Kent to the Elizabeth Line.
Hayes ideally via Lewisham for the connections but that might be putting too many trains through Lewisham. I deliberately removed all the services that have a mix of stopping at or avoiding Lewisham, but if all the other services plus 2tph Hayes would fit then maybe keep that pattern for Hayes.

Dartford and Gravesend get 6tph to Abbey Wood, albeit not evenly spaced
Cannon Street services don't interact with anything else until Dartford
All connections to a different London terminal at Lewisham/Denmark Hill are at least 4tph.

I'm guessing the biggest complaints would probably be about the loss of services from the Sidcup line to London Bridge?

 

[PTR 444]

I know people will complain about losing direct services, but many passengers in London will be making connections anyway to their preferred central destination. So why not simplify Southeastern as much as possible? Charing Cross/Cannon Street splits seem particularly unnecessary given the frequency to both and various City or West End tube stations from London Bridge.

What about -

6tph Cannon Street via Greenwich - 2tph to Cannon Street via Bexleyheath, 4tph to Rainham/Gravesend.
2tph Cannon Street via Lewisham-Woolwich to Gravesend
2tph Cannon Street to Dartford via Bexleyheath
4tph Victoria to Dartford via Sidcup
4tph Charing Cross to Hayes
4tph Charing Cross to Orpington/Sevenoaks via Lewisham
4tph Thameslink to Orpington/Sevenoaks (via Swanley) via the Catford loop
4tph Victoria to Orpington via Herne Hill

All services listed calling at all stations within Greater London - with the possible exception of some trains between Dartford and Abbey Wood for faster connections from Kent to the Elizabeth Line.
Hayes ideally via Lewisham for the connections but that might be putting too many trains through Lewisham. I deliberately removed all the services that have a mix of stopping at or avoiding Lewisham, but if all the other services plus 2tph Hayes would fit then maybe keep that pattern for Hayes.

Dartford and Gravesend get 6tph to Abbey Wood, albeit not evenly spaced
Cannon Street services don't interact with anything else until Dartford
All connections to a different London terminal at Lewisham/Denmark Hill are at least 4tph.

I'm guessing the biggest complaints would probably be about the loss of services from the Sidcup line to London Bridge?

Yes. Also you only have 2tph in each direction through Bexleyheath, unless I have read that wrong.

 

[MotCO]

I know people will complain about losing direct services, but many passengers in London will be making connections anyway to their preferred central destination. So why not simplify Southeastern as much as possible? Charing Cross/Cannon Street splits seem particularly unnecessary given the frequency to both and various City or West End tube stations from London Bridge.

But a change at London Bridge will involve a change to a non-adjacent platform, adding at least 10 minutes to each journey, and the risk of not getting a seat on the evening trains which you would get if you boarded at the origin station. 10 minutes may not sound much, but on a currently 30 minute journey, it adds 33% to the journey time. Commuters time their journeys to the minute, so messing around with changes will not go down well.

Also, could you imagine the volume of passengers trying to change platforms at London Bridge - it would be vastly more than at present, and the station was probably not designed for such flows. Also, it could lead to longer dwell times at London Bridge as you have a mass exodus and boarding.

 

[NCT]

But a change at London Bridge will involve a change to a non-adjacent platform, adding at least 10 minutes to each journey, and the risk of not getting a seat on the evening trains which you would get if you boarded at the origin station. 10 minutes may not sound much, but on a currently 30 minute journey, it adds 33% to the journey time. Commuters time their journeys to the minute, so messing around with changes will not go down well.

Also, could you imagine the volume of passengers trying to change platforms at London Bridge - it would be vastly more than at present, and the station was probably not designed for such flows. Also, it could lead to longer dwell times at London Bridge as you have a mass exodus and boarding.

It's no more onerous than a typical tube interchange (only a small number of changes are cross-platform).

 

[158756]

Yes. Also you only have 2tph in each direction through Bexleyheath, unless I have read that wrong.

2tph Cannon Street - Cannon Street via Greenwich and Bexleyheath (in both directions)
2tph Cannon Street - Dartford

 

[NCT]

2tph Cannon Street - Cannon Street via Greenwich and Bexleyheath (in both directions)
2tph Cannon Street - Dartford

That's still only 4?

Pre Covid Bexleyheath was 6tph off-peak and 10tph peak. The existing rolling stock constrained timetable isn't far off that (6tph shoulder off-peak and 8tph high peak).

 

[35B]

It's no more onerous than a typical tube interchange (only a small number of changes are cross-platform).

But that doesn’t take into account how much people have built their lives around the pre-existing service patterns. For those who “lose” in that change, the impact is to take a pre-existing through journey and turn it into a stressful interchange.

I used to live in Orpington, travelling either through Waterloo or to Cambridge Circus. Working with the timetable, I could usually ensure a seat in at least one direction on my commute. If I’d had to change at London Bridge, even as now rebuilt, that journey would have been much, much, worse.

 

[NCT]

But that doesn’t take into account how much people have built their lives around the pre-existing service patterns. For those who “lose” in that change, the impact is to take a pre-existing through journey and turn it into a stressful interchange.

I used to live in Orpington, travelling either through Waterloo or to Cambridge Circus. Working with the timetable, I could usually ensure a seat in at least one direction on my commute. If I’d had to change at London Bridge, even as now rebuilt, that journey would have been much, much, worse.

Oh the humanity.
Try mentioning the word seat to anyone living in tube land and see how far you get.

 

[35B]

Oh the humanity.
Try mentioning the word seat to anyone living in tube land and see how far you get.

I do when I use LNER into London these days - sometimes I'm lucky to escape without bruising...

But the point I make is serious - people plan their lives around services. What would make great sense if starting afresh becomes a major issue when forcing a change because it makes the service more efficient.

Changing an existing service will cause people to lose out. Those losers will be vociferous and angry. Those losses need to be at least balanced by gains to others - probably more than balanced. That doesn't mean efficiency for operators, but real gains to travellers.

I'd be very surprised if that would be possible with the SE inner suburban routes, when the overlay of Cannon Street and Charing Cross services is so integral to how people have chosen to live.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I know people will complain about losing direct services, but many passengers in London will be making connections anyway to their preferred central destination. So why not simplify Southeastern as much as possible? Charing Cross/Cannon Street splits seem particularly unnecessary given the frequency to both and various City or West End tube stations from London Bridge

We have this already, it’s pretty much been this since December 2022, and it’s gone down like a lead balloon, The Woolwich line customers and even a fair few Bexleyheath line customers who can get to Abbey Wood or Woolwich for the EL have largely abandoned SE, which is why now the EL is pretty much standing room only by Custom House in the peaks.

We know the new London Bridge was rebuilt to make it into a better interchange but while its better than the old station it’s still not nearly as good enough an interchange, especially in the peaks.

When cuts came in I tried and found myself letting two or three Charing Cross trains go because they were packed, over crowding was an issue at London Bridge as well, hence why I stopped using SE and switched to the EL.

No matter how much people try and make out changing trains is a good alternative direct trains are still preferred.

 

[35B]

We have this already, it’s pretty much been this since December 2022, and it’s gone down like a lead balloon, The Woolwich line customers and even a fair few Bexleyheath line customers who can get to Abbey Wood or Woolwich for the EL have largely abandoned SE, which is why now the EL is pretty much standing room only by Custom House in the peaks.

We know the new London Bridge was rebuilt to make it into a better interchange but while its better than the old station it’s still not nearly as good enough an interchange, especially in the peaks.

When cuts came in I tried and found myself letting two or three Charing Cross trains go because they were packed, over crowding was an issue at London Bridge as well, hence why I stopped using SE and switched to the EL.

No matter how much people try and make out changing trains is a good alternative direct trains are still preferred.

Precisely this.

 

[MatthewE707]

My suggestion (for peak times):

• 2tph Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks via Catford
• 2tph Luton - Orpington via Catford
• 2tph Victoria - Bellingham
• 2tph Blackfriars - Beckenham Junction
• 4tph Victoria - Orpington
• 2tph Cannon Street - Cannon Street via Woolwich and Bexleyheath
• 2tph Cannon Street - Cannon Street via Woolwich and Sidcup
• 2tph Charing Cross - Rainham semi-fast via Blackheath and Woolwich
• 2tph Luton - Dartford via Woolwich
• 2tph Victoria - Gravesend via Bexleyheath
• 2tph Charing Cross - Dartford via Bexleyheath
• 2tph Cannon Street - Bexleyheath
• 2tph Victoria/Blackfriars - Dartford via Sidcup
• 2tph Charing Cross - Gravesend via Sidcup
• 2tph Charing Cross - Strood/Gillingham semi-fast via Sidcup (first stop New Eltham)
• 4tph Charing Cross - Hayes
• 2tph Cannon Street - Orpington
• 2tph Charing Cross - Orpington (first stop Grove Park)
• 2tph Charing Cross - Sevenoaks

 

[PTR 444]

Would many people care if the Luton - Rainham Thameslink service was axed? Its reliability was patchy and I’m sure if the Greenwich Line was revised with a 10 minute interval service to Cannon Street, many more people would be satisfied with their journey. Most passengers wouldn’t need to change at London Bridge as they can do so onto the Tube at Cannon Street, which also offers direct access to Charing Cross.

The suggestion upthread of a Victoria - Greenwich - Medway service I think is a sound idea, and would be a good way of replacing the Thameslink service without the imported reliability issues from the core.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2026 ==

We have this already, it’s pretty much been this since December 2022, and it’s gone down like a lead balloon, The Woolwich line customers and even a fair few Bexleyheath line customers who can get to Abbey Wood or Woolwich for the EL have largely abandoned SE, which is why now the EL is pretty much standing room only by Custom House in the peaks.

I think this is why Abbey Wood should have been built with passive provision to extend the Elizabeth Line eastwards. That way, you could let EL take over more of the SouthEastern network with the connectivity and capacity that it brings.

We know the new London Bridge was rebuilt to make it into a better interchange but while it’s better than the old station it’s still not nearly as good enough an interchange, especially in the peaks.

Surely separating the flows so that all Greenwich trains go to Cannon Street etc was better for service frequency, in theory at least.

No matter how much people try and make out changing trains is a good alternative direct trains are still preferred.

This is true, but frequency also matters. How many complain about making changes between Tube lines, which has been established practice for decades?

 

[NCT]

We have this already, it’s pretty much been this since December 2022, and it’s gone down like a lead balloon, The Woolwich line customers and even a fair few Bexleyheath line customers who can get to Abbey Wood or Woolwich for the EL have largely abandoned SE, which is why now the EL is pretty much standing room only by Custom House in the peaks.

We know the new London Bridge was rebuilt to make it into a better interchange but while its better than the old station it’s still not nearly as good enough an interchange, especially in the peaks.

When cuts came in I tried and found myself letting two or three Charing Cross trains go because they were packed, over crowding was an issue at London Bridge as well, hence why I stopped using SE and switched to the EL.

No matter how much people try and make out changing trains is a good alternative direct trains are still preferred.

This post is so logically chaotic it might as be an AI hallucination.

People are so averse of changing they've elected to change at Abbey Wood in droves. What this proves is that people are willing to change, and to stand (even if their outbound journey has a seat, their return journey on the EL will be a standing one) for a simple and frequent metro-style journey - the exact opposite to what you claim.

That there is such a propensity to switch to the EL also shows that very few people have final destinations that are precisely Cannon Street or Charing Cross.

 

[NorthKent1989]

This post is so logically chaotic it might as be an AI hallucination.

People are so averse of changing they've elected to change at Abbey Wood in droves. What this proves is that people are willing to change, and to stand (even if their outbound journey has a seat, their return journey on the EL will be a standing one) for a simple and frequent metro-style journey - the exact opposite to what you claim.

That there is such a propensity to switch to the EL also shows that very few people have final destinations that are precisely Cannon Street or Charing Cross.

Well I can assure you that I’m not AI, bizarre claim but okay.

Comparing changing at Abbey Wood for a service that is only over the bridge in terms of a platform change, and a service that literally starts there so guaranteed a seat and a service where if you miss a train another train is on the other platform with even more seats available is a world of difference to changing at London Bridge, a much larger station, prone to overcrowding, platforms busy, letting two or three trains go and therefore increasing journey times, it cannot even be compared.

During 2022, the ChX to Dartford via Lewisham and Woolwich service was still the busiest service on that line, having travelled on both the SE metro and EL services I can say that more city passengers ditched Cannon Street and Thameslink services than for Charing Cross trains during that period.

Would many people care if the Luton - Rainham Thameslink service was axed? Its reliability was patchy and I’m sure if the Greenwich Line was revised with a 10 minute interval service to Cannon Street, many more people would be satisfied with their journey.

I suppose the Greenwich line stations west of Charlton commuters would object, but Thameslink is so unreliable opposition would be few and far between.

Surely separating the flows so that all Greenwich trains go to Cannon Street etc was better for service frequency, in theory at least

In theory yes, but commuters have complained of increased journey times due to having to change trains, the rational thinking behind sending Greenwich line trains plus services serving St.John’s & New Cross was to keep each line clear and free of conflict, that went out the window the moment Thameslink was shoved through the Greenwich line to Rainham using NK East Jnc, however even if Thameslink goes the Greenwich line would never have CHX trains again so a return to the 2009-2018 timetable would be the ideal solution, 6tph on the Greenwich line, with 2tph Charing Cross (or Victoria) to Rainham semi fast via Blackheath and Woolwich.

This is true, but frequency also matters. How many complain about making changes between Tube lines, which has been established practice for decades?

Can’t compare mainline suburban services with the tube lines, yes frequency matters but time reducing also matters, changing trains on any given day has variable outcomes, missed connections, delayed trains etc.

Precisely this.

Thank you.

Oh the humanity.
Try mentioning the word seat to anyone living in tube land and see how far you get

But he’s not wrong though is he, also you cannot compare tube lines where they run on 36tph on some lines to suburban lines which are at present on many SE lines, 4tph, the Catford Loop and Penge East lines are 2tph, a commuter on the Victoria line doesn’t have to worry about a long wait if they miss a train as one would be long in under a minute

 

[London Trains]

This post is so logically chaotic it might as be an AI hallucination.

People are so averse of changing they've elected to change at Abbey Wood in droves. What this proves is that people are willing to change, and to stand (even if their outbound journey has a seat, their return journey on the EL will be a standing one) for a simple and frequent metro-style journey - the exact opposite to what you claim.

That there is such a propensity to switch to the EL also shows that very few people have final destinations that are precisely Cannon Street or Charing Cross.

You've missed a key point which massively affects the logic though, the fact that the Elizabeth Line is a proper metro service running every 5 minutes at peak times.

If the suggestion was that every line on the Southeastern metro network was going to get a 12tph (every 5 mins) service only going to one terminal, I'm sure 99% of people would be more than happy with that, but when you are dealing with much lower frequencies of 4tph or 6tph, people would much rather have a mix of direct services to where they want to go.

 

[NCT]

The problem with National Rail land of South London is that despite operationally relatively high frequencies, passengers don't get the benefit, and the complex everywhere-to-everywhere routings introduce so many flat crossings that nothing operates reliably. As a result, south London has lower built densities, public transport mode shares and Central London employment participation rates than its north-of-the-river counterpart, and this disparity is acting as a drag on London's economic development.

Higher frequencies and better performance are precisely the things that can be unlocked if you take the plunge and simplify the routes. The trick is to transition from 'work with the timetable' to 'work with frequencies'. Deptford and New Cross Gate getting fast runs to London Bridge is something folks at Bow Road, Manor House or Hampstead can't even begin to imagine.

While Westminster politics might be spineless in dealing with Granthamites, London is used to more robust methods. The South London Line lost its Victoria services, MML lost its Moorgate services, and Greenwich was locked to Cannon Street because of Thameslink. Nobody died and these aren't areas that then went to vote for Brexit and poll for Reform. TfL/GLA understand London's economic needs and passenger behaviour, and the carrots and sticks that do and don't work far better than DfT do. When TfL proposes metroisation and single terminus service patterns they know what they are talking about.

A metroised Southeastern inner service pattern could look like:

Dartford Lines (Thameslink evicted):
- all day 6tph Cannon Street to Greenwich, Woolwich and Dartford
- all day 6tph Cannon Street - Bexleyheath
- all day 4tph Cannon Street - Sidcup bypass Lewisham
- all day 2tph Cannon Street - Woolwich via Lewisham
- all day 4tph Victoria - Sidcup (the quietest of the three get the service group that's limited to 4tph)
- peak only 2tph Cannon Street - Sidcup bypass Lewisham
- peak only 4tph Cannon Street - Bexleyheath
Prioritise maximising Abbey Wood - Dartford services for Crossrail connections, and as many of these as possible / sensible to Gravesend. Service frequencies to be balanced by running rounders. Preserving Bexleyheath - Slade Green likely means terminating at Slade Green thus requiring a bay platform

South Eastern Main Line:
- all day 4tph Charing Cross - Orpington and Sevenoaks (2tph) via Lewisham
- all day 4tph Charing Cross - Hayes via Lewisham
- peak only 2tph Charing Cross - Orpington
- peak only 2tph Charing Cross - Hayes via Lewisham

Nothing crosses over at Lewisham Crossover Junctions.

Dartford gets considerably better connectivity to Crossrail, Bexleyheath gets the highest frequency, Sidcup gets a choice of two terminals at 4tph each and fast journeys to London Bridge (Lewisham avoiding), and everybody gets high frequency interchanges to the DLR at Lewisham. Everyone gets something.

Lewisham has dedicated Charing Cross and Cannon Street platforms. Sidcup passengers can still 'take the first train and change'. If they get a Victoria train they change at Lewisham on the same platform for a peak 12tph service to Charing Cross.

Chatham Main Line:
- all day 4tph to Orpington

Catford Loop:
- all day Thameslink to Orpington / Sevenoaks

 

[35B]

The problem with National Rail land of South London is that despite operationally relatively high frequencies, passengers don't get the benefit, and the complex everywhere-to-everywhere routings introduce so many flat crossings that nothing operates reliably. As a result, south London has lower built densities, public transport mode shares and Central London employment participation rates than its north-of-the-river counterpart, and this disparity is acting as a drag on London's economic development.

Higher frequencies and better performance are precisely the things that can be unlocked if you take the plunge and simplify the routes. The trick is to transition from 'work with the timetable' to 'work with frequencies'. Deptford and New Cross Gate getting fast runs to London Bridge is something folks at Bow Road, Manor House or Hampstead can't even begin to imagine.

While Westminster politics might be spineless in dealing with Granthamites, London is used to more robust methods. The South London Line lost its Victoria services, MML lost its Moorgate services, and Greenwich was locked to Cannon Street because of Thameslink. Nobody died and these aren't areas that then went to vote for Brexit and poll for Reform. TfL/GLA understand London's economic needs and passenger behaviour, and the carrots and sticks that do and don't work far better than DfT do. When TfL proposes metroisation and single terminus service patterns they know what they are talking about.

You ignore the people who travel on these trains. As a piece of design, I completely agree with you that the way that the SE London routes have developed is utterly sub-optimal. But when I lived in Orpington, there were large numbers working in each of the City (so best served by Cannon Street) and West End (Charing Cross).

By running pairs of trains in flights, one to Cannon Street and one to Charing Cross, the demand was relatively well met - at the 3 tph that the line could sustain in peak (yes, I am aware the timetable has changed since I left the area). The issue with changing as you suggest is that you make the trains the object of focus, and ignore the people who use them. This would force very large numbers to change one way or the other at London Bridge, introducing bottlenecks of people to replace the current rail bottlenecks.

This is the same fundamental issue that means that separation of the Northern Line into separate Charing Cross and Bank branches is practically impossible - the human cost of the additional changes at Camden Town being far greater than the opportunity cost of not being able to run trains through the pipe as efficiently.

Resolutions to these problems are possible, but they require massive expenditure to realise. Accepting the problem as you define it, I'd be looking at other projects to deliver modal shift, rather than tinkering with service patterns that will alienate many, and not deal with the fundamental issue of insufficient capacity.

 

[NCT]

You ignore the people who travel on these trains. As a piece of design, I completely agree with you that the way that the SE London routes have developed is utterly sub-optimal. But when I lived in Orpington, there were large numbers working in each of the City (so best served by Cannon Street) and West End (Charing Cross).

By running pairs of trains in flights, one to Cannon Street and one to Charing Cross, the demand was relatively well met - at the 3 tph that the line could sustain in peak (yes, I am aware the timetable has changed since I left the area). The issue with changing as you suggest is that you make the trains the object of focus, and ignore the people who use them. This would force very large numbers to change one way or the other at London Bridge, introducing bottlenecks of people to replace the current rail bottlenecks.

This is the same fundamental issue that means that separation of the Northern Line into separate Charing Cross and Bank branches is practically impossible - the human cost of the additional changes at Camden Town being far greater than the opportunity cost of not being able to run trains through the pipe as efficiently.

Resolutions to these problems are possible, but they require massive expenditure to realise. Accepting the problem as you define it, I'd be looking at other projects to deliver modal shift, rather than tinkering with service patterns that will alienate many, and not deal with the fundamental issue of insufficient capacity.

Good political governance cannot just pander to existing loud minorities (yes they are a minority) - it must challenge existing vested interests and privileges and govern for the future. The needs of the current silent majority and future users (those who today would only live in Tube land) should be prioritised. There is sufficient evidence in London to show that simple metro operations are more effective than complex railway operations at serving the people. If you run the trains through pipes efficiently people keep piling in. There are plenty of single tube line corridors where large numbers of people change trains often through far less roomy tube station passageways. The principle of Northern line separation is sound - it's a matter of when not if.

 

[35B]

Good political governance cannot just pander to existing loud minorities (yes they are a minority) - it must challenge existing vested interests and privileges and govern for the future. The needs of the current silent majority and future users (those who today would only live in Tube land) should be prioritised. There is sufficient evidence in London to show that simple metro operations are more effective than complex railway operations at serving the people. If you run the trains through pipes efficiently people keep piling in. There are plenty of single tube line corridors where large numbers of people change trains often through far less roomy tube station passageways. The principle of Northern line separation is sound - it's a matter of when not if.

Effective political leadership also requires that existing voters’ interests are considered, and that progress balances the old and the new.

Those existing users may be a minority, but they are the existing customers - and they’ve organised their lives around what’s previously been on offer. Depriving them of that and insisting that they change their patterns requires them to see an overall benefit, even if they themselves are inconvenienced.

 

[NCT]

Effective political leadership also requires that existing voters’ interests are considered, and that progress balances the old and the new.

Those existing users may be a minority, but they are the existing customers - and they’ve organised their lives around what’s previously been on offer. Depriving them of that and insisting that they change their patterns requires them to see an overall benefit, even if they themselves are inconvenienced.

The kind of minor adjustments is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing GLA/TfL hasn't embarked upon before, and voting and decision making is at the GLA level which is overall well versed to the aggregate benefits of metros.

 

[Concorde9289]

Here's my proposed services, and theres probably a million and one reasons why these are the most utterly stupid and butchered services Southeast London has ever seen:

2tph Charing X to Sevenoaks (same as before)
2tph Cannon St to Sevenoaks via Swanley

2tph Charing X to Hayes avoiding Lewisham (same as before)
2tph Cannon St to Hayes & Orpington (dividing at New Beckenham)

2tph Victoria to Orpington
2tph Blackfriars to Beckenham Junction via Herne Hill

2tph Victoria to Dartford via Lewisham and Woolwich
2tph Cannon St to Cannon St via Greenwich and Sidcup (both clockwise and anticlockwise)
2tph Charing X to Dartford via Bexleyheath
2tph Cannon St to Gravesend via Bexleyheath
2tph Charing X to Gravesend via Sidcup

2tph Bromley North to London Victoria via Lewisham

 

[35B]

The kind of minor adjustments is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing GLA/TfL hasn't embarked upon before, and voting and decision making is at the GLA level which is overall well versed to the aggregate benefits of metros.

I’m not sure I’d call such changes, or their impact, minor. Nor, if they were minor, would I regard them as being of such value.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The problem with National Rail land of South London is that despite operationally relatively high frequencies, passengers don't get the benefit, and the complex everywhere-to-everywhere routings introduce so many flat crossings that nothing operates reliably

And since 2022 it’s been beneficial to passengers has it? Having 2tph to CST and 2tph to CHX is hardly complex

Dartford Lines (Thameslink evicted):
- all day 6tph Cannon Street to Greenwich, Woolwich and Dartford
- all day 6tph Cannon Street - Bexleyheath
- all day 4tph Cannon Street - Sidcup bypass Lewisham
- all day 2tph Cannon Street - Woolwich via Lewisham
- all day 4tph Victoria - Sidcup (the quietest of the three get the service group that's limited to 4tph)
- peak only 2tph Cannon Street - Sidcup bypass Lewisham
- peak only 4tph Cannon Street - Bexleyheath
Prioritise maximising Abbey Wood - Dartford services for Crossrail connections, and as many of these as possible / sensible to Gravesend. Service frequencies to be balanced by running rounders. Preserving Bexleyheath - Slade Green likely means terminating at Slade Green thus requiring a bay platform

You seem to have missed out Medway that needs a connection to the EL.

Good political governance cannot just pander to existing loud minorities (yes they are a minority

They’re really not minorities

You've missed a key point which massively affects the logic though, the fact that the Elizabeth Line is a proper metro service running every 5 minutes at peak times.

If the suggestion was that every line on the Southeastern metro network was going to get a 12tph (every 5 mins) service only going to one terminal, I'm sure 99% of people would be more than happy with that, but when you are dealing with much lower frequencies of 4tph or 6tph, people would much rather have a mix of direct services to where they want to go.

Good points.

Most people in SE London don’t care with having their services run tube/metro style to one terminal, the choice in terminal is what draws a lot of people to this part of the world.

 

[NCT]

You seem to have missed out Medway that needs a connection to the EL.

Medway's core services are provided by the 'Outer' service groups. To me the focus would be to run the high speed as 12-cars over full peak period, and 2tph fast Victoria services all day. I'd also up the Victoria - Rochester semi-fast (those that call at Swanley, Farningham Road, Longfield and Sole Street) to 2tph all day too. Higham would get 2tph as per today, as extension of the Woolwich line to Gravesend service. Between the Victoria semi-fast and the Woolwich line service, one will terminate at Rochester and the other Rainham - depending on operations.

Most people in SE London don’t care with having their services run tube/metro style to one terminal, the choice in terminal is what draws a lot of people to this part of the world.

And what are the two services that have seen explosive growth? Windrush and Elizabeth - the metros.

 

[Transilien]

Most people in SE London don’t care with having their services run tube/metro style to one terminal, the choice in terminal is what draws a lot of people to this part of the world.

Really? I don’t come from anywhere near south London and the main transport complaint that I hear about the area is the lack of tube service. The only easy way to rectify this would be through simplifying the service pattern and giving a higher frequency to these lines.