Does Thameslink require a radical Action Plan?

[GordonT]

The original ethos of Thameslink placed great store upon the critical importance of trains presenting themselves with a very high percentage of right time running as they entered the core section. Unfortunately the reality has become more a case of regular haphazardness of running for lengthy spells on most days due to unplanned infrastructure or other issues at some point on the huge octopuslike system with its vast tentacles.
Can anyone suggest a simplification of the operation which would be for the greater good or would such treatment be worse than the current ailment?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Put it back the way it was, with one route into two, more like the Elizabeth Line, and remove all the extra junk that has been added into it, in some cases purely to be able to move those services to DOO.

 

[Magdalia]

The original ethos of Thameslink placed great store upon the critical importance of trains presenting themselves with a very high percentage of right time running as they entered the core section. Unfortunately the reality has become more a case of regular haphazardness of running for lengthy spells on most days due to unplanned infrastructure or other issues at some point on the huge octopuslike system with its vast tentacles.
Can anyone suggest a simplification of the operation which would be for the greater good or would such treatment be worse than the current ailment?

I have addressed this before in other discussions. I foresaw what was to come and moved house in 2017 to escape it.

I agree that the current timetable is too complicated, lacks resilience and is too susceptible to complete collapse.

The way forward does not need to be radical, but it does need to reduce the risks of meltdown, by taking out the bits that most add to risk. So I would do the following:

• Cambridge stoppers must never go through the core
• the only Thameslink trains through the Welwyn 2 track section should be the Cambridge-Brightons and some peak hour Peterboroughs
• Welwyn-Sevenoaks should run all day to provide GN trains that don't use the Welwyn 2 track section
• everything else north of the river to be on the Midland
• south of the river no trains onto the South Eastern except for Sevenoaks/Orpington via Catford, this means never going to Maidstone and knocking out Rainham, which has HS1 and Elizabeth Line as other options
• keep the Sutton loop
• everything else south of the river to be via Norwood Junction, though I would look at going to Epsom via West Croydon instead of Horsham via Redhill
• and don't go above 20 tph in the peaks

 

[A0]

I have addressed this before in other discussions. I foresaw what was to come and moved house in 2017 to escape it.

I agree that the current timetable is too complicated, lacks resilience and is too susceptible to complete collapse.

The way forward does not need to be radical, but it does need to reduce the risks of meltdown, by taking out the bits that most add to risk. So I would do the following:

• Cambridge stoppers must never go through the core
• the only Thameslink trains through the Welwyn 2 track section should be the Cambridge-Brightons and some peak hour Peterboroughs
• Welwyn-Sevenoaks should run all day to provide GN trains that don't use the Welwyn 2 track section
• everything else north of the river to be on the Midland
• south of the river no trains onto the South Eastern except for Sevenoaks/Orpington via Catford, this means never going to Maidstone and knocking out Rainham, which has HS1 and Elizabeth Line as other options
• keep the Sutton loop
• everything else south of the river to be via Norwood Junction, though I would look at going to Epsom via West Croydon instead of Horsham via Redhill
• and don't go above 20 tph in the peaks

Bit in bold - why the Cambridge - Brighton and not the Peterborough - Horsham as at present ?

Both have to go through the Welwyn 2 track section, but north of Hitchin the Peterborough's are on a 4 track railway to Huntingdon and a 3/4 track to Peterborough whereas the Cambridge's are on a 2 track railway from Hitchin.

If your contention is the risk is around 2 track sections and removing them improves resilience, then eliminating the Cambridge services through the core would make far more sense than the Peterborough's.

 

[Magdalia]

Bit in bold - why the Cambridge - Brighton and not the Peterborough - Horsham as at present ?

Both have to go through the Welwyn 2 track section, but north of Hitchin the Peterborough's are on a 4 track railway to Huntingdon and a 3/4 track to Peterborough whereas the Cambridge's are on a 2 track railway from Hitchin.

If your contention is the risk is around 2 track sections and removing them improves resilience, then eliminating the Cambridge services through the core would make far more sense than the Peterborough's.

The Cambridge-Brighton service is very popular. I don't have figures but I suspect it is the biggest gain from the 2018 changes.
Currently Peterborough line stations are completely reliant on Thameslink, Cambridge line stations are not.
There's resilience because Cambridge trains can be turned short at Letchworth. One of the huge problems with the Peterborough service is there is nowhere to turn short.
Peterborough trains also have to share the 2 track section at Holme Fen with ECML services, and down trains have to cross up ECML services to terminate at Peterborough. The Cambridge trains have a flyover at Hitchin to cross up ECML trains and on the branch only have to fit in between the fast Fen Line trains and the local stoppers.
So on the whole Cambridge is more lucrative and more resilient than Peterborough.

 

[A0]

The Cambridge-Brighton service is very popular. I don't have figures but I suspect it is the biggest gain from the 2018 changes.

That may be so - but we're looking at resilience.

Currently Peterborough line stations are completely reliant on Thameslink, Cambridge line stations are not.

So are all the Midland line stations north of Kentish Town with the exception of the Lutons and Beford which get EMR.

There's resilience because Cambridge trains can be turned short at Letchworth. One of the huge problems with the Peterborough service is there is nowhere to turn short.

Is it not possible to turn at St Neots or Huntingdon ? Certainly looks like the trackwork exists at St Neots to do so. Huntingdon used to be able to but may not be able to any more.

However, the ECML slows are less congested than the Cambridge line is, not least because the passenger services up there are the 2 tph Thameslink which have a consistent stopping pattern unlike the Cambridge branch.

Peterborough trains also have to share the 2 track section at Holme Fen with ECML services, and down trains have to cross up ECML services to terminate at Peterborough. The Cambridge trains have a flyover at Hitchin to cross up ECML trains and on the branch only have to fit in between the fast Fen Line trains and the local stoppers.

Hitchin - Shepreth Junc = 23 miles of 2 track railway with 7 stations. 90mph speed limit.

Huntingdon - Peterborough = 17 miles of 2/3 track railway with 0 stations and 100mph + linespeed - it's a much easier one to recover time on.

So on the whole Cambridge is more lucrative and more resilient than Peterborough.

Possibly - but we're looking at resilience. And the Peterborough line is more resilient as it has greater capacity and fewer trains running through it.

The LNER services are 5 tph - and the lack of stops between Huntingdon and Peterborough makes it easier to recover time.

Sending all the Cambridge's to Kings Cross would be less of an issue and anyone wanting to go south onto Thameslink would have an easy change at Finsbury Park.

 

[Magdalia]

So are all the Midland line stations north of Kentish Town with the exception of the Lutons and Beford which get EMR.

The Midland is more resilient because it has 4 tracks all the way to Bedford, and opportunities for reversal at Cricklewood, St Albans and Luton. Furthermore reversals at St Albans and Luton are between the slow lines so involve no conflicting moves.

Is it not possible to turn at St Neots or Huntingdon ? Certainly looks like the trackwork exists at St Neots to do so. Huntingdon used to be able to but may not be able to any more.

Huntingdon used to require running ecs to Conington and back. St Neots is a facing crossover between the fast lines. Both moves block the ECML in both directions and are therefore out of the question because of damage to ECML punctuality.

Hitchin - Shepreth Junc = 23 miles of 2 track railway with 7 stations. 90mph speed limit.

Huntingdon - Peterborough = 17 miles of 2/3 track railway with 0 stations and 100mph + linespeed - it's a much easier one to recover time on.

The LNER services are 5 tph - and the lack of stops between Huntingdon and Peterborough makes it easier to recover time.

No it doesn't. On the up road late running ECML trains mean late start for Thameslink trains. They also have to do a running brake test as they have started from Peterborough. Thameslink trains are timed at 100mph on the ECML between Peterborough and Huntingdon so, once late, the only way to make up time is to skip stops. Trains turning on or off the fast lines also reduce fast line capacity because they have to slow down for the crossovers. Of the relevant crossovers only the down slow to down fast at Holme is 70mph, balanced out by the maximum speed on the slow line Huntingdon-Holme being only 80mph. The crossovers at Huntingdon are 40mph, delaying any ECML services following close behind. The crossovers at Peterborough from the down fast into platforms 1 and 2, used by terminating Thameslink trains, are 30/25 mph and have severe approach control. Its the speed over those crossovers that governs the start to stop journey times, and how much fast line capacity the Thameslink trains occupy. As a result late running down Thameslink trains delay ECML services with knock on effects all the way to Scotland.

 

[Bald Rick]

Action Plan:

1) complete ATO training for the core (the difference to performance is remarkable)
2) conclude the industrial dispute
3) improve driver availability - the absence rate is still nearly twice the Pre Covid level

These things alone will improve performance significantly. Not that it is particularly bad at present.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Completely agree with moving out of rainham and Medway as suggested above for these services. They were a disaster when they started and continue to be a disaster now. These services could be replaced buy a a sheerness to Dartford stopping local service providing direct mainline connection into and out of the Medway towns and South East London without having to change trains. Could also experiment with through running onto the Medway valley from this service as well with some of the freed up paths

Doing this would also allow some of the smallest station calls to be removed from Victoria services, admittedly this could be a pain for residents of these areas who have to change somewhere to access Victoria but might still be worth a try

 

[cle]

It's needed to sort out the bad, and nonsensical service on the Greenwich line - which needs to revert to an even 6tph / 10 min interval.

Where to send the Rainham? Nowhere, if the paths don't work. This is where we need a turnback between Elephant and Loughborough Jn / Denmark Hill - or similar, to turn trains (esp 12 car) which won't fit to Windmill.

But the frequency will no doubt be needed on the north side - in this case, a Luton service which can't turn in Kings X like some of the GN ones might.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Is there a station somewhere on that stretched that could be rebuilt or relocated to accommodate such?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It's needed to sort out the bad, and nonsensical service on the Greenwich line - which needs to revert to an even 6tph / 10 min interval.

Where to send the Rainham? Nowhere, if the paths don't work. This is where we need a turnback between Elephant and Loughborough Jn / Denmark Hill - or similar, to turn trains (esp 12 car) which won't fit to Windmill.

But the frequency will no doubt be needed on the north side - in this case, a Luton service which can't turn in Kings X like some of the GN ones might.

There is one - known as "Herne Hill Turnback" siding - and used for reversing trains which terminate at Elephant and Castle ........(roughly where Herne Hill sorting sidings were)

 

[365 Networker]

Bring back an hourly service between Kings Cross and Peterborough all day. It would also be nice to have the fast services back, although I can't see that happening any time soon. Perhaps one of the hourly Peterborough - Horsham services in each direction could be cut to allow for my suggestion.

 

[Alfie1014]

There is one - known as "Herne Hill Turnback" siding - and used for reversing trains which terminate at Elephant and Castle ........(roughly where Herne Hill sorting sidings were)

Can that only accommodate an 8 car though?

 

[Stephen42]

Can that only accommodate an 8 car though?

It's longer than the station so think it's a 12 car though the Rainham's are all 8 car anyway. It's unclear how much it actually solves; the SE metro timetable is uneven on most branches. It was an even 6tph before the pandemic (with an evenish 4tph late evenings) so it's lack of funding rather than Thameslink. Splitting it out means there's roughly 5 more class 700s which the DfT is committed to paying for with nothing to do, theoretically they could go to GN for peak extras but SE will need the equivalent number of units or possibly one more.

 

[A0]

Bring back an hourly service between Kings Cross and Peterborough all day. It would also be nice to have the fast services back, although I can't see that happening any time soon. Perhaps one of the hourly Peterborough - Horsham services in each direction could be cut to allow for my suggestion.

Peterborough does get at least 2tph LNER services which are either fast to Kings Cross or stop at Stevenage.

Not sure there needs to be a fast Thameslink / GN service as well.

Peterborough gets a far better deal than, for example, Northampton, which only gets 2 TPH to London and those have been slowed down with additional stops in the latest round of timetable "improvements".

 

[adamedwards]

The answer to resilience at Peterborough is surely to use the Werrington dive under and electrify a little bit of line to enable the Thamelinks to reverse on the line to Spalding, so terminating trains do not conflict with the ECML. See a previous post by me suggesting more stations for Peterborough as part of this.

 

[365 Networker]

Peterborough does get at least 2tph LNER services which are either fast to Kings Cross or stop at Stevenage.

Not sure there needs to be a fast Thameslink / GN service as well.

Peterborough gets a far better deal than, for example, Northampton, which only gets 2 TPH to London and those have been slowed down with additional stops in the latest round of timetable "improvements".

I agree - Peterborough does get a reasonable service, but Huntingdon, St Neots and Biggleswade no longer have the fast services that they once did.

 

[miklcct]

I agree - Peterborough does get a reasonable service, but Huntingdon, St Neots and Biggleswade no longer have the fast services that they once did.

I don't think these minor stations need a fast service. A stopper is enough to take them to Stevenage where fast services call.

 

[Skimble19]

I don't think these minor stations need a fast service. A stopper is enough to take them to Stevenage where fast services call.

Do you actually use these services? Or live on the route at all? If you did you’d know they’re often full, and on weekends are full and standing.

Using your solution would also completely remove any time saving, so would be pointless.. there’s no advantage in changing at Stevenage.

I agree - Peterborough does get a reasonable service, but Huntingdon, St Neots and Biggleswade no longer have the fast services that they once did.

Indeed, especially during the evenings. Always well used, and certainly preferred by many over the slower Thameslink services. Based on the numbers using them from Peterborough alone I suspect quite a few people prefer the slower but lower fare fast Great Northern services compared to the more expensive but slightly faster LNER services.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Action Plan:

1) complete ATO training for the core (the difference to performance is remarkable)
2) conclude the industrial dispute
3) improve driver availability - the absence rate is still nearly twice the Pre Covid level

These things alone will improve performance significantly. Not that it is particularly bad at present.

Would there be enough value in expanding out the core to make it worthwhile doing? Ie. Pushing the boundaries out to Kentish Town/Finsbury Park in the North, South of London Bridge and Elephant in the south.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Thameslink core (i count that as L.Bdge to St.Pancras) functions very effectively and i doubt there is any better section on the main line network where station dwell times vs number of passengers unloading/boarding are superbly managed by drivers (benefits of DOO). You can be down 5 at STP and easily get a RT departure from L.Bdge. Now patronage isn't at Elizabeth Line levels so i get it doesn't need protecting at all costs but currently its too easily abandoned.

The resilience issue comes from seemingly nowhere to turn trains when an incident is in play especially on the South side where almost everything gets removed on the Brighton Main Line if there is a core issue. I get doing any reversal on ECML is fraught with issues to plan it but its not impossible and the railway needs to get away from being totally obsessed with PPM rather than letting signallers and operators use their skills to manage a situation which even though im a moaner about the service sometimes teh reality is it runs pretty reliably most of the time. Yes the service is complicated to resource with many drivers covering the whole route length South to North and this gives doesn't help with maintaining services at times of perturbation as drivers end up out of position.
Also im not sure they ever implemented the traffic management system but happy to be corrected.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would there be enough value in expanding out the core to make it worthwhile doing? Ie. Pushing the boundaries out to Kentish Town/Finsbury Park in the North, South of London Bridge and Elephant in the south.

Not sure what you mean by that, but if you mean the ATO boundary, then you have described where it is, more or less.

Also im not sure they ever implemented the traffic management system but happy to be corrected.

No.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Not sure what you mean by that, but if you mean the ATO boundary, then you have described where it is, more or less.

Oh I thought it was only just north of St Pancras to just South of Blackfriars. But would there be value in expanding this?

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh I thought it was only just north of St Pancras to just South of Blackfriars. But would there be value in expanding this?

There would be value in expanding it everywhere!

 

[bramling]

I don't think these minor stations need a fast service. A stopper is enough to take them to Stevenage where fast services call.

These aren’t really minor stations. All are quite large towns, most of which have seen considerable expansion since the 90s (fast services were apparently justifiable even then), and also serve considerable catchment areas. The service now is essentially wrecked compared to pre-2018.

 

[A0]

I agree - Peterborough does get a reasonable service, but Huntingdon, St Neots and Biggleswade no longer have the fast services that they once did.

You mean like the 6.39, 7.38 and 8.39 which ran today and had a single stop at Stevenage?

Or the 17.12 and 18.12 in the other direction?

It should be said that whilst all other services are slower they do stop at Arlesey (only services which can), Hitchin and Finsbury Park - the latter being useful as it's on the Victoria and Piccadilly lines as well as having a diect link to the City at Moorgate.

2 tph feels about right for the likes of Biggleswade, St Neots etc and the stopping pattern is provides a reasonable balance between speed and connectivity.

Comparing Biggleswade to Letchworth (the latter being about 1/3rd bigger) - Letchworth gets 4 tph, but 2 of them are stoppers, so all stations to Hatfield, then Potters Bar and Finsbury Park which take 52 mins and 2 which follow the same stopping pattern as the Biggleswade services (Hitchin, Stevenagr and Finsbury Pk) which take 40 mins compared to 43 mins for Biggleswade.

I'm sure if there was a way to terminate the outer suburban stoppers before Letchworth then Letchworth would be on 2tph running to the same stopping pattern as Biggleswade.

 

[Bald Rick]

These aren’t really minor stations. All are quite large towns, most of which have seen considerable expansion since the 90s (fast services were apparently justifiable even then), and also serve considerable catchment areas. The service now is essentially wrecked compared to pre-2018.

They are also very valuable stations. With annual season tickets in the region of £6k…

 

[365 Networker]

You mean like the 6.39, 7.38 and 8.39 which ran today and had a single stop at Stevenage?

Or the 17.12 and 18.12 in the other direction?

Yes, but the fast services used to run all day - rather than a few early and evening services.

The service now is essentially wrecked compared to pre-2018.

Indeed - I find the timetable quite bloated these days - long dwell times and padded timings which often result in services not running at line speed and heavy, early braking. I know of quite a few people who since the withdrawal of the majority of fast service and to an extent the 365s, now avoid rail travel when possible.

 

[43074]

Yes, but the fast services used to run all day - rather than a few early and evening services.

That's not quite true, they were half hourly and for a longer period during the peaks so it's true the fast service isn't as good but they have never run all day.