• 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!

Could you bring Thameslink core up to Elizabeth line standards?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
384
The question is in the title, really: the Elizabeth Line is a great way to get across London.

Thameslink also is, to an extent - the frequency is excellent. But in the core, and also parts of south London it can also feel very slow for a mainline railway, with services running at 30mph and even 20mph in parts, such as joining the core from London Bridge.

In previous threads I've heard different explanations from this, from pathing requirements, to track geometry and linespeed. I'm not clear on what it would take or how realistic it is.

But would it be possible, and if so what would it take, to raise linespeed so that it felt like more of an express service like the Elizabeth Line? Or at least close to it. Currently the Northern Line gives it a run of its money in parts.

Putting a bit of a crayonista hat on, if Thameslink operated to a similar standard as the Elizabeth Line, and were Crossrail 2 ever built, you could group the three lines as a system (perhaps called Crossrail) with constituent lines Elizabeth Line, Thameslink Line (or whatever), and whatever you wanted to call Crossrail 2. It would all amount to a nice little RER/S-Bahn service.

Currently, to make a crude journey time comparison:

On the Elizabeth Line, Paddington to Liverpool Street, which is 4 miles as the crow flies, is 10 minutes
On Thameslink, King's Cross to Blackfriars, which is 1.65 miles as the crow flies is about 8 or 9 minutes
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,057
Location
UK
The Crossrail core was built without any historical running rights. Thameslink runs on tracks that other stock will be on.

Pathing time, aka padding, helps smoothen out the many branches of Thameslink into an orderly and consistent flow through its core. When things are going well, it’s just time to burn.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
21,988
Location
Airedale
Essentially you would need to build a new railway to gain any significant increase in speed
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
Another difficulty with the Thameslink core is its relatively short overall distance (eg from London Bridge to St Pancras) and the three intermediate stations are not spread out evenly along the route, in fact there’s so little distance between Blackfriars and Farringdon I doubt that bit could ever be speeded up by much at all.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,061
Location
St Albans
The Crossrail core was built without any historical running rights. Thameslink runs on tracks that other stock will be on.

Pathing time, aka padding, helps smoothen out the many branches of Thameslink into an orderly and consistent flow through its core. When things are going well, it’s just time to burn.
Given the constraints, TL does pretty well most of the time, especially as it is threading it's way througn the labyrinthine network of junctions south of the core. If that had ERTMS or an equivalent 21st century signalling system as the core does, and when the MML is fully upgraded with all services at least having EMU rates of acceleration, we might find that much of the queueing at the various entry points to the core runs with even less disruption.

Once the Lizzie is running it's full service between all four branches, and delays on GWR or GE 'Main' tracks upset XR's exclusivity of the 'Electric track, there might be some serious hiccups occasionally.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,144
Location
Leeds
Remove destinations from the ends of the Thameslink network until it's as simple as the Crossrail network?
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
1,090
Location
London
Putting a bit of a crayonista hat on, if Thameslink operated to a similar standard as the Elizabeth Line, and were Crossrail 2 ever built, you could group the three lines as a system (perhaps called Crossrail) with constituent lines Elizabeth Line, Thameslink Line (or whatever), and whatever you wanted to call Crossrail 2. It would all amount to a nice little RER/S-Bahn service.
I've always assumed that this was precisely the thinking behind the Crossrail Logo...
crl_logo.png
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
8,279
I've sometimes wondered whether with all the expense of rebuilding the Thameslink line over the last 20 years, leaving us a railway still with an awkward and slow route between London Bridge and Blackfriars, whether it would have been better to have just built a Crossrail style tunnel in the first place. Or for part of the way, say between Farringdon and Bricklayers Arms, with an underground station at London Bridge, reducing the need for the massive rebuild at London Bridge or the new Borough viaduct.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
I've sometimes wondered whether with all the expense of rebuilding the Thameslink line over the last 20 years, leaving us a railway still with an awkward and slow route between London Bridge and Blackfriars, whether it would have been better to have just built a Crossrail style tunnel in the first place. Or for part of the way, say between Farringdon and Bricklayers Arms, with an underground station at London Bridge, reducing the need for the massive rebuild at London Bridge or the new Borough viaduct.
A tunnelled option was looked at but found to be too costly, I think it was stated in the inspectors report for the Borough and London Bridge alterations. It’s definitely been discussed in a number of previous threads where others have had the same idea.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
In previous threads I've heard different explanations from this, from pathing requirements, to track geometry and linespeed. I'm not clear on what it would take or how realistic it is.

The linespeed is down to the track alignment, which in turn is down largely to it being subsurface following street alignments. You have our Victorian forefathers to thank for that. Speeding it up means building a brand new railway.

Currently, to make a crude journey time comparison:

On the Elizabeth Line, Paddington to Liverpool Street, which is 4 miles as the crow flies, is 10 minutes
On Thameslink, King's Cross to Blackfriars, which is 1.65 miles as the crow flies is about 8 or 9 minutes

It’s 2.2 miles from St Pancras to Blackfriars by Thameslink. The time spent at stations is a big factor in this.

Station dwell times in the Thameslink core are 1 minute each, with (usually) 2 at London Bridge; on Crossrail they average at 45 seconds, and arguably that is too long.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
I presume the shorter dwell time is primarily due to the platform edge doors ensuring boarding passengers know where to stand?

that’s part of it, also more doors per metre of train, and also because there is much less doubt about where the train is going, and therefore fewer people on the platform who aren’t boarding (and thus in the way)
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,902
I've always assumed that this was precisely the thinking behind the Crossrail Logo...
crl_logo.png
What Crossrail 1, Thameslink, and Crossrail 2?

I completely disagree. It looks obvious to me that it's a W on the left (albeit on it's side) and an E on the right, and Crossrail links West of London through to the East.
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
1,090
Location
London
I presume the shorter dwell time is primarily due to the platform edge doors ensuring boarding passengers know where to stand?
At Farringdon (TL) there are rubber extension pads on the edge of the platform that line up with the doors, presumably at other TL stations too, but admittedly they are not immediately obvious.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
At Farringdon (TL) there are rubber extension pads on the edge of the platform that line up with the doors, presumably at other TL stations too, but admittedly they are not immediately obvious.

There are certainly markings on the platforms to show where the doors will be.
 

Mikw

Member
Joined
20 Apr 2022
Messages
547
Location
Leicester
I can only imagine the cost and complexity of rebuilding it.

To be honest i think the Elizabeth Line is a once in a generation things anyway.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,835
At Farringdon (TL) there are rubber extension pads on the edge of the platform that line up with the doors, presumably at other TL stations too, but admittedly they are not immediately obvious.
I think that's just on the raised area of the platforms in the core where they allow for level boarding to the wheelchair/disabled spaces.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,271
Could a case be made to say 'you must have ETCS, 700 performance and be compatible with PEDs to operate' in the core between 0430-0000 daily justify a speed increase - perhaps only to ETCS traffic?
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,835
Could a case be made to say 'you must have ETCS, 700 performance and be compatible with PEDs to operate' in the core between 0430-0000 daily justify a speed increase - perhaps only to ETCS traffic?
The only trains operating in the Thameslink core are ETCS fitted 700s. However, I suspect platform edge doors are not compatible with curved platforms.
 

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,057
Location
UK
You could say that in the shared areas that the timetable should be closer to the 700s ability. But that just adds risk from other trains being closer to causing delays, as recovery time would also be less.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
Could a case be made to say 'you must have ETCS, 700 performance and be compatible with PEDs to operate' in the core between 0430-0000 daily justify a speed increase - perhaps only to ETCS traffic?

you might have missed it upthread, but it is the alignment that determines the linespeed. It is very, very twisty.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,061
Location
St Albans
you might have missed it upthread, but it is the alignment that determines the linespeed. It is very, very twisty.
I think that some of the suggestions here are from posters who:
a) don't understand why TL was created in the first place
b) don't appreciate just how highly tuned the infrastructure and trains are to get a generally reliable service through the core
and c) understand that even with a complete replacement the core tracks/tunnels/stations and removal of conflicts south of Blackfriars, there would probably be less than 3 minutes improvement for a service required to call at four intermediate stations in just four miles.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,271
you might have missed it upthread, but it is the alignment that determines the linespeed. It is very, very twisty.
oops - my mistake indeed!

An ideal world would have a slightly faster speed between Farringdon and St Pancras - but that alignment won't make anything easy!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
Related to all this, but from personal observation, trains that are in ATO manage Blackfriars Junction to Kentish Town about 2 minutes quicker, on average, than those that are driven manually. This is mostly in the braking, and a little in the acceleration. So you don’t necessarily need speed to be quicker.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,061
Location
St Albans
Related to all this, but from personal observation, trains that are in ATO manage Blackfriars Junction to Kentish Town about 2 minutes quicker, on average, than those that are driven manually. This is mostly in the braking, and a little in the acceleration. So you don’t necessarily need speed to be quicker.
How is it possible for a passenger to detect that the train they are on is running under ATO?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,960
How is it possible for a passenger to detect that the train they are on is running under ATO?

The best way is to be sat in the passenger area directly behind the driver, and listen. If you hear the AWS pinging, it’s not in ATO! (Noting you may need a first class ticket to sit there).

Another way is that the doors open in the core immediately on stopping, as the train does not need to wait for driver release.

Finally, if you are on, or see, a train accelerating through a platform, and braking at the last moment - particularly if it’s on approach to a red signal - thats ATO. Happened to mine last night.

EDIT: And this morning.

EDIT 2: And again this evening!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top