FCC MD leaves

[73110]

Half Yearly results for First http://www.firstgroup.com/assets/pdfs/investors/annual_reports/DRAFT_INTERIMS_09_Current.pdf

 

[mackenzie_blu]

Less trains will no doubt be a good way of moving things towards having the franchise taken away - or at best, not being given the short extension at the end of the TL project.

Wow; I did think it was going to be tough when Elaine left, but I never realised how quickly things would fall to pieces. Surely they made big profits because they managed to run things very well, and while the TL side needed a lot of work, they seemed to be getting things done pretty well.

Now look at it; we're at a turning point where things are rapidly approaching rock bottom and they're planning FURTHER cuts to services in the future.

Right few points here. What they are talking about is doing less with the whole Thameslink programme. It doersn't mean cuts as FCC will be order extra trains. Whats been muted is having new NXEMU's on the Bedford Brighton, 319 on the loop and some more NXEMUs for GN/TL services and not serving so many Southeastern places.

Tho I have heard of rumours (and I mean rumours) London Bridge will have reduced build to reduce costs.

Current services will be at the same level post TLP but with longer trains on the Bedford-Brighton route.

Also none of this has anything to do with FCC as what Im talking about its all to do with DfT plans for the franchise.

 

[The Box Photter]

Thameslink is a waste of space on the network really.

Trains were more punctual and less crowded during the "blockade" when the St Pancras "box" was being built. The whole idea of using the same trains to act as commuter services from Bedford into London and Brighton into London is too fraught with potential for delays. I've lost count of the times that my northbound train to Bedford has been cancelled because of "driver's sandwiches on the line near Balcome" or "stubbed toe at Hassocks".

Split the network in two with Brighton trains running into London Bridge and turn Blackfriars into a terminus for Bedford trains. Just because it might be possible to run a through train from Kings Lynn to Littlehampton doesn't make it desirable.

 

[Pumbaa]

Split the network in two with Brighton trains running into London Bridge and turn Blackfriars into a terminus for Bedford trains. Just because it might be possible to run a through train from Kings Lynn to Littlehampton doesn't make it desirable.

Give the man a medal. Precisely the sort of common sense that is needed, so sadly it won't happen.

 

[jon0844]

I'm not sure about cutting things in two, but there's probably an argument for not sending all trains through the middle, and having some trains start at St Pancras south and Blackfriars north (or wherever) - which would make it easier to board a non-packed train in the middle.

Few people will be worried about where the train started from, especially when a packed train arrives at St Pancras and loads of people who've arrived on Eurostar want to get on with their baggage.

I wonder how many people out in Bedford, Luton or St Albans want to go to Brighton (or beyond London)? Obviously some, especially off-peak and weekends (but there's more capacity then), but I am sure you could cut a fair few trains.

 

[royaloak]

I'm not sure about cutting things in two, but there's probably an argument for not sending all trains through the middle, and having some trains start at St Pancras south and Blackfriars north (or wherever) - which would make it easier to board a non-packed train in the middle.

Few people will be worried about where the train started from, especially when a packed train arrives at St Pancras and loads of people who've arrived on Eurostar want to get on with their baggage.

I wonder how many people out in Bedford, Luton or St Albans want to go to Brighton (or beyond London)? Obviously some, especially off-peak and weekends (but there's more capacity then), but I am sure you could cut a fair few trains.

Surely if your first highlighted point is true, then the answer to your second point is lots.
The trouble with turning trains back is time, the driver has to shut down the cab, walk to the other end of a 12 coach train, set up and then depart, this will probably take about 10 minutes and then the train will have to cross over, now if the trains are running at 5 minute headway then that is one train taking the paths of 4 (2 each direction). If the train is running through then 30 seconds will do for a station stop, this is one of the reasons for all trains running through with none terminating.

 

[73110]

I have asked several senior managers, including Elaine Holt and they all say the reason why they run through the core is to link the two airports together.

Why?

The chances of someone changing at Gatwick for an onward flight from Luton (and vice-versa) is remote. There is no such flight whereas the passenger can buy a ticket where the airlines 'cost-share' between Gatwick and Luton.

It would make sound economic sense to run from Bedford to Farringdon and Brighton to City. It would be so much easier then.

 

[Wyvern]

Quite a lot of people from the north of London heading for Brighton and elsewhere (including me) make use of the new interchange at St Pancras, rather than trawling all the way across London to Victoria.

I doubt there's room to reverse trains at STP

I imagine it also eases congestion on the tube, and it is the preferred route offered by National Rail Enquiries. You can buy a ticket on EMT "via" FCC that is up to £10 cheaper.

 

[jon0844]

I guess the whole of St Pancras was a mess. Yes, we kept a wonderful looking building but there are not enough platforms upstairs and the two downstairs will struggle to cope at busy times when delays occur or a train breaks down.

If they'd built things differently (a bit late now) then you could have trains from Brighton to Bedford as normal (and vice versa) and some that terminate at St Pancras and reverse - WITHOUT having to be stopped on the main platforms. Oh, and of course you'll have the same with trains on the GN side coming over (although aren't some of these going to stop and terminate at King's Cross, which sort of solves the problem).

If you stopped trains at City Thameslink and Farrindon, there'd be no way to connect up for those who do want to go from Luton to Brighton, Gatwick to Luton Airport (I agree though; how many people want or need this?), Farringdon to London Bridge or whatever.

The fact is; we're stuck with St Pancras and two platforms trying to squeeze in a very optimistic number of trains per hour. Perhaps in 50 years, we'll knock down half the station and start again... or just build an all-new station somewhere else and turn it into a museum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely if your first highlighted point is true, then the answer to your second point is lots.

I don't know. Before the weekend shutdown and the closure of Blackfriars tube, I used to stay on to get onto the Circle Line to go to stations on the southern part of the loop. A lot of people may also be staying on to London Bridge. I suspect many people aren't going on all the way to Brighton, or possibly Gatwick Airport (and this would vary a great deal throughtout the day as the times people fly aren't strictly in line with the usual peak/off-peaks on a train).

However, those that were wouldn't be too inconvenienced by the need to change train - as against getting to another station (as splitting the service in two) would do. As my plan suggests, some trains will continue to go through - so it would just require better planning by passengers.

(Guess who was bored this morning)

 

[73110]

Great picture!!

 

[djw1981]

4 platforms at St Pancras would have allowed for some turnback in case of breakdown / service disruption, the running of half services, and semi fast / fast services being added later (using the station as a passing loop)

 

[Firestarter]

Yes I agree 4 platforms would have been better than 2. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=26728

 

[mackenzie_blu]

I'm not sure about cutting things in two, but there's probably an argument for not sending all trains through the middle, and having some trains start at St Pancras south and Blackfriars north (or wherever) - which would make it easier to board a non-packed train in the middle.

Few people will be worried about where the train started from, especially when a packed train arrives at St Pancras and loads of people who've arrived on Eurostar want to get on with their baggage.

I wonder how many people out in Bedford, Luton or St Albans want to go to Brighton (or beyond London)? Obviously some, especially off-peak and weekends (but there's more capacity then), but I am sure you could cut a fair few trains.

Im going to disagree with you completely here. Reasoning is based in watching this happen on a daily basis. Most passengers on the commuter services wish to get the Blackfriars or City. This is from both the north and the south. If you terminate at Farringdon from Bedford expect alot of complaints. I witness most 8 cars heading south pull in with none or little standing room at City and people swarm out. The reason for going between is because its the only to provide enough trains to actually cope with the numbers of passangers.

Its not about people wanting to go from Bedford to Brighton but jouneries inbetween these points. Travelling on a single train without interchanging is popluar with people.

Off peak flows vary hugely with some trains full and others empty but remember just because you may see a train empty doesn't mean its empty the whole of its jounery.

As for terimating at St Pancras and Blackfriars, beside the point of recent money spent on them where the hell do you find space for them? Look at Blackfriars, where would you fit the platforms for the termination of all services? It would be a huge cost and even building an underground terminus is out due to the buildings in the area blocking anything else being built and I doubt Sutton loop passengers would like the idea of lessing services.

As you state, people would like to board an empty trains. Anything you suggested would actually decrease the chance of this. The actually only soluation is what NR have done, 12 car train to increase the ability to carry more people.

As for 4 tracking the core, I think everyone agrees this is the best soluation but no-one will ever provide the multi-billion funds to actually build it.

 

[jon0844]

My idea can't be done - but it should have been thought about. I didn't think terminating trains at Farringdon or City would be a good idea. I think there's an argument for a cross-over - but only a small number of trains doing this while the others go all the way.

So, Brighton > St Pancras
Bedford > Blackfriars (or London Bridge?)
etc

You obviously know more as you're on the front line - and the whole splitting idea only really works if there's somewhere to park trains and reverse them. It's all totally and utterly impossible with the set up and what we get at the end of the TL project (however it comes out), so all of this a 'what if' fantasy discussion anyway.

The other option would be to end a percentage of trains at St Pancras to split services in half - but that is also impossible with the current setup and no chance of it changing without a LOT of work!

I do wonder why we're even discussing this - but also why this wasn't thought about before someone thought you could reliably run 24tph through the core potentially using Bombardier trains!!

 

[Wyvern]

The main problem was the whole rebuilding of St Pancras was planned years ago when it was thought a simple replacement for Kings Cross Thameslink would be enough, and the Midland Mainline would only need a few platforms.

 

[Metroland]

You would significantly reduce capacity terminating at Blackfriars. Some of the lines nearby are among the most heavily trafficked overground lines in the country with over 30,000 passenger per hour on each line in the peak.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

My idea can't be done - but it should have been thought about. I didn't think terminating trains at Farringdon or City would be a good idea. I think there's an argument for a cross-over - but only a small number of trains doing this while the others go all the way.

So, Brighton > St Pancras
Bedford > Blackfriars (or London Bridge?)
etc

You obviously know more as you're on the front line - and the whole splitting idea only really works if there's somewhere to park trains and reverse them. It's all totally and utterly impossible with the set up and what we get at the end of the TL project (however it comes out), so all of this a 'what if' fantasy discussion anyway.

The other option would be to end a percentage of trains at St Pancras to split services in half - but that is also impossible with the current setup and no chance of it changing without a LOT of work!

I do wonder why we're even discussing this - but also why this wasn't thought about before someone thought you could reliably run 24tph through the core potentially using Bombardier trains!!

Its a valid point that you raised but Im sure the idea was looked at but dismissed early on.

As for the new trains, well Bombariber reckons they will be 70% more realible so they should break down once a day with the increased milage if we're luckly. Think of the choas as 15 377/5 have managed to destroy a few peaks, what a 100 units would do! Maybe this CTT FCC are running as of now is getting ready for a fully Bombarbier built fleet?

 

[The Box Photter]

Glad to have stimulated some discussion on the topic of Thames-un-Link.

I accept that with the current pattern of services and infrastructure it wouldn't work, but we need to think outside the (Stpancras)box here.

If the stopping services to Luton & St Albans were scrapped, that would leave a four-track railway all the way from Kentish Town to Bedford for a semi-fast and fast service. There is no need to run a train service for the inner-suburban stations as alternatives exist for people living near them.

This evening we had the ridiculous situation of trains running ALL STATIONS from Blackfriars to Bedford. Why were long-distance passengers (who pay through the nose for their season tickets) being inconvenienced because trains had to stop additionally at Kentish Town, Cricklewood, West Hampstead et al? Has nobody heard of the Jubilee Line or the Northern Line?

I'm sure that a four-platform station is possible at Blackfriars with two through roads and two bay platforms. The time taken to turn a DOO train there shouldn't cause too many problems if the bay platforms are built either side of the through tracks. Automatic Train Operation has been suggested for the Core services so that should allow headways to be reduced. Of course there was a terminus available at Moorgate (Midland) but FCC saw fit to close it because rebuilding Farringdon to take 12 car trains was a priority.

Time to start planning and junk the mess that is FCC and Thameslink.

Nobody wants to travel from Luton Airport to Gatwick Airport and commuters will adapt to reduced through services.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

Glad to have stimulated some discussion on the topic of Thames-un-Link.

I accept that with the current pattern of services and infrastructure it wouldn't work, but we need to think outside the (Stpancras)box here.

If the stopping services to Luton & St Albans were scrapped, that would leave a four-track railway all the way from Kentish Town to Bedford for a semi-fast and fast service. There is no need to run a train service for the inner-suburban stations as alternatives exist for people living near them.

This evening we had the ridiculous situation of trains running ALL STATIONS from Blackfriars to Bedford. Why were long-distance passengers (who pay through the nose for their season tickets) being inconvenienced because trains had to stop additionally at Kentish Town, Cricklewood, West Hampstead et al? Has nobody heard of the Jubilee Line or the Northern Line?

Thats more to do with the current troubles. In the regular timetable (currently not in use) there is peak all stations services to Bedford.

Note part of the positives of Thameslink is reducing overcrowding on the Tube network. TfL works with FCC because of this. The extra traffic generated on the Northern Line because of the weekend engineering works is very noticable.

I will also pojt out that there is a large number of people would actually travel from the airports to their local station. In your idea someone in say West Hampstead would have to travel from say Luton Airport to St Pancras, change for the Tube to Baker Street, try to get down to the Jubilee Line and then home from there. The current system means one slightly difficult getting off at West Hampstead instead of two interchanges. This is recoginsed as putting people off. If they can travel directly they will use the service over a car.

Point out that a slow all stations service takes 10mins more to get to St Albans than a slow all stations train so there isn't actually that much in it. Its all about what is the perception of the passenger and I know it feels alot longer on a slow train then a fast.

I'm sure that a four-platform station is possible at Blackfriars with two through roads and two bay platforms. The time taken to turn a DOO train there shouldn't cause too many problems if the bay platforms are built either side of the through tracks. Automatic Train Operation has been suggested for the Core services so that should allow headways to be reduced. Of course there was a terminus available at Moorgate (Midland) but FCC saw fit to close it because rebuilding Farringdon to take 12 car trains was a priority.

Time to start planning and junk the mess that is FCC and Thameslink.

Nobody wants to travel from Luton Airport to Gatwick Airport and commuters will adapt to reduced through services.

Actually having the bays either side is a worse thing as trains will have to cross over at some point plus the difficulties for passengers not having a clue which platform to go from. The better soluation is to have to terminating platforms in the middle with the runnng lines on the outside. This way one large concourse area could serve passengers to all destinations and allow easy interchange from terminating services to through services. Also this would produce better cusomer service as staff would be able to help all passengers rather than just spread out.

And FCC never saw fit to close Moorgate. Its actually the DfT/NR that decided that. FCC was given the franchise under the condition Moorgate would close.

Reduced services still gets you no-where as people will still need to go else where, plus the extra pressure put on stations where everyone is forced to change. You try telling passengers for Moorgate from the MML stations that is ok because you have the Tube and they will answer back its a hell of alot more difficult now. Not to mention that the service is over crowded now so less service is always a bad thing. Less services but longer trains would mean passeneger have the same jounery but less choices in actually making it.

The biggest problem you have with Thameslink is its actually a proudct people like and now need to use because its better for them then what was there before.

Note the headway of the ATO is something around 2.5mins in normal service but an expected dwell time 45 seconds, headway in time of disruption is expected to be as low as 70-90 seconds. Normal service dwell time in the Core currently can actually be around 60 seconds as often trains are being dispatched as the auto door shut on the 377's starts. So with a new fleet these rather tight timings may be possible.

 

[jon0844]

Thameslink is also very busy despite the fact that it doesn't show on many maps and is rarely considered for normal travel around London.

When Blackfriars tube station was open - going from Farringdon/King's Cross to Blackfriars (a matter of minutes) was an excellent short cut than going all the way round the circle line, as many people would. How would a tourist with a tube map ever know otherwise?

 

[91101]

There is a signifigant ammount of FCC's business generated from airport traffic to and from the airports and between them also.

I work in West Hampstead and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that there is a huge demand to and from there for stations both North and South.

 

[thelem]

Nobody wants to travel from Luton Airport to Gatwick Airport

Have you got any evidence to back that up? I would have thought there are quite a lot of people who have "connecting" flights and want to travel between the two, or maybe the routes that the airports offer don't encourage that.

 

[johnb]

1) the airport-to-airport issue is negligible - Luton is entirely frequented by point-to-point budget airlines and holiday charters, while Gatwick is mostly budget and charter with a bit of scheduled long-haul (unlucky US carriers, plus BA's Caribbean flights). There's very little reason why you'd ever want to transfer from one to the other.

2) However, the need to get people from St Albans or Kentish Town to Gatwick Airport, and the need to get people from Croydon and Three Bridges to Luton Airport, is significant.

More generally - Thameslink is a much more efficient use of London space and of rolling stock than terminating trains would be, and it provides a better service to passengers by running through (by giving a choice of termini and not requiring you to take the Tube). Getting rid of it would be crazy.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

2) However, the need to get people from St Albans or Kentish Town to Gatwick Airport, and the need to get people from Croydon and Three Bridges to Luton Airport, is significant.

You remind me of a point I'd forgetten about. I regularly get the 0546 Kentish Town - Brighton (its a slow stopping service up to London Bridge) service en route to work. Every single day I see atleast two people boarding this train for Gatwick. Now if you think people are doing this along the line at this hour of the day, whats the demand like in more regular hours?

Sadly tho this train is neither in the reduced timetable nor is it in the December 09 timetable (its replaces with a Sutton service).

 

[paul1609]

1) the airport-to-airport issue is negligible - Luton is entirely frequented by point-to-point budget airlines and holiday charters, while Gatwick is mostly budget and charter with a bit of scheduled long-haul (unlucky US carriers, plus BA's Caribbean flights). There's very little reason why you'd ever want to transfer from one to the other.

.

Think you'll find that Gatwick actually has a lot of scheduled services (are there any non budget short haul services anymore). Its also used by many of the African and middle East Airlines plus Virgin. Emirates LGW to Dubai is now my favourite way to Australia and New Zealand. All its lost in recent years is some BA flights and lets face it BA has had its day.

 

[The Box Photter]

As a previous poster has said, passengers now use Thameslink core services as an alternative to getting on the tube. Surely that puts them at odds with long-distance passengers.

What I was suggesting is that at present Thameslink is trying to be both a long-distance commuter service and an alternative to the tube and a way of passengers getting to two of the south-east's main airports. Those three things are incompatible.

At present, the available trains and drivers are insufficient to do all three.

By the way, can anyone give me a good reason why trains are still being short-formed. If they're only running half the trains, there must be sufficient spare capacity to create permanently coupled pairs at Selhurst & Cauldwell.

17.42 from Blackfriars tonight was 4-car and it was a zoo at St Pancras!

Oh, and by the way, it may be an efficient use of rolling stock to run trains all the way from Brighton to Bedford, but the possibilities for delay are endless. It is difficult to explain to a bemused passenger at St Pancras wanting to head north that their train is being delayed because of something that might have happened in East Sussex. The service was much better for northbound passengers when it was split.

 

[mackenzie_blu]

As a previous poster has said, passengers now use Thameslink core services as an alternative to getting on the tube. Surely that puts them at odds with long-distance passengers.

What I was suggesting is that at present Thameslink is trying to be both a long-distance commuter service and an alternative to the tube and a way of passengers getting to two of the south-east's main airports. Those three things are incompatible.

At present, the available trains and drivers are insufficient to do all three.

By the way, can anyone give me a good reason why trains are still being short-formed. If they're only running half the trains, there must be sufficient spare capacity to create permanently coupled pairs at Selhurst & Cauldwell.

17.42 from Blackfriars tonight was 4-car and it was a zoo at St Pancras!

Oh, and by the way, it may be an efficient use of rolling stock to run trains all the way from Brighton to Bedford, but the possibilities for delay are endless. It is difficult to explain to a bemused passenger at St Pancras wanting to head north that their train is being delayed because of something that might have happened in East Sussex. The service was much better for northbound passengers when it was split.

The trains are very much not upto the job as is witnessed everyday but then things have changed since they were first introduced. Wonder if things would have been any better if they had actually introduced Networker Express to the route.

Thameslink is trying to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Silmar problems are beig experienced on the Metropolitan Line with the new S Stock. Going to be intresting to compare how the two soluations develop and compare.

Offical reason is that they don't have enough rescources to shunt the units and make them into 8 cars.

I don't think its difficult to explain to customers in Central London why things get delayed. I do it on a regular basis. They know Thameslink is quite different from alot of the other TOCs. They do get annoyed that its delayed alot but they do realise (mostly) that to give connections and service to places so distance that delays are likely.