Govia get Thameslink Franchise

[Olaf]

This site Has slightly more info.
Plus route specific PDF's (great Northern)
Confirms Cambridge is getting class 377
in 2016 great northern will loose class 317 and 321.
Lists station that will be manned form first to last train
Not all good news certain stations will get a gate line Alexandra Palace,
Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill, Hornsey, New Barnet, Palmers
Green, Winchmore Hill

Oyster to be extended to WGC

Thanks; a useful and informative source.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think there's a lot that First or any other bidder wouldn't have done - even a lot of the timetable changes were part of a fairly detailed outline from the DfT.

Naturally a lot of the things that happen in 2018 will be seen by many as only happening because First were 'kicked out'.

I think a key factor in the selection of Gocia to run the franchise is their experience with introducing new stock, and there managerial experience which will be needed for all the planned changes around the Thameslink project.

 

[jon0844]

Well, Govia has got a history of introducing new stock - and then leasing it to FCC.

 

[Olaf]

Its because its an eariler version of the plans where Dartford still played a part. Not quite sure why GTR did a map showing it unless it was an opition that they offered the DfT but was rejected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Im not so sure there will be a lot of confusion if the two brands are marketed well. People don't seem to be too confused between Kings Cross and Moorgate now. Don't forget there will be strict stock divisions per route with 700s for Thameslink, 377/365 for Kings Cross and 313 replacements for Moorgate.

Plus the three different brands.

 

[jopsuk]

actually, one of the points that's been missed in the talk of "which train to get for Cambridge"- there will be an additional semi-fast and stopping train every hour, as the pattern will have two Kings Cross-Kings Lynn Express (first stop Cambridge), two Brighton-Cambridge (presumably running with a stopping pattern similar to the current 1tph "semi fast") and two Tattenham Corner-Cambridge (Presumably calling all stations Hitchin-Cambridge - will this mean SDO or platforms made longer- as I thought the latter had been ruled out?). The exact times these leave Kings Cross-St Pancras therefore are an unknown.

Curiously omitted, given they include various other future developments, from the fact sheets is Cambridge Science park station!

 

[mister-sparky]

...Just wondering but IF the Wimbledon/Sutton Loop services were cut back to start/terminate at Blackfriars to provide a much more frequent service, what would have replaced the service between St Pancras Int and Luton?

Would a Kentish Town to Luton service have been viable?

Secondly IF they did do this, could we have not seen a 15 minute service frequency around the Wimbledon/Sutton Loop so 4tph instead of the existing 2tph?

]

The "Loop" trains from Luton and St Albans would have gone to different destinations south of the Thames. They wouldn't lose services. And yes the "Loop" would have been increased in frequency to 4 maybe 6 tph. So they've kept their cross-London services, but they're gonna be trapped with just 2tph. I know I'd prefer higher frequency, but the masses disagreed.

 

[Class377/5]

]

The "Loop" trains from Luton and St Albans would have gone to different destinations south of the Thames. They wouldn't lose services. And yes the "Loop" would have been increased in frequency to 4 maybe 6 tph. So they've kept their cross-London services, but they're gonna be trapped with just 2tph. I know I'd prefer higher frequency, but the masses disagreed.

The Loop services would have become 8tph running Blackfriars to London Bridge via the loop but the commuters on the line campaigned against this as direct trains through the Core was more important.

To be fair if the masses who have been subject to years of disruption while supporting the TLP, why would the change to keeping Loop services through the Core not been seen as anything other than the farepayers getting what they want?

Well, Govia has got a history of introducing new stock - and then leasing it to FCC.

Note quite, they have a history of being told by the DfT to do that.

Plus the three different brands.

GTR will have four brands but never will all meet at one place. In fact for most people they see similar branding level to now. Only the GN really sees any change but that's not a bad thing.

 

[mister-sparky]

To be fair if the masses who have been subject to years of disruption while supporting the TLP, why would the change to keeping Loop services through the Core not been seen as anything other than the farepayers getting what they want?

Yea they are getting what they wanted. I just said that I'd prefer an increase in frequency if I lived on the line. Thats what most people want, increased frequencies and increased capacity. Just seems odd that they didn't.

 

[RichardN]

The Loop services would have become 8tph running Blackfriars to London Bridge via the loop but the commuters on the line campaigned against this as direct trains through the Core was more important.

To be fair if the masses who have been subject to years of disruption while supporting the TLP, why would the change to keeping Loop services through the Core not been seen as anything other than the farepayers getting what they want?



Note quite, they have a history of being told by the DfT to do that.



GTR will have four brands but never will all meet at one place. In fact for most people they see similar branding level to now. Only the GN really sees any change but that's not a bad thing.

Hmmm, a Blackfriars to London Bridge season would have been good value. They'd have had to mark it not via X presumably... as there are no intermediate stations on the direct route.

 

[Class377/5]

Hmmm, a Blackfriars to London Bridge season would have been good value. They'd have had to mark it not via X presumably... as there are no intermediate stations on the direct route.

Read the post, via loop means has stations.

Yea they are getting what they wanted. I just said that I'd prefer an increase in frequency if I lived on the line. Thats what most people want, increased frequencies and increased capacity. Just seems odd that they didn't.

Most people valve a train direct to work than a change on route which would have eaten up a fair bit of the reduced waiting time.

 

[hassaanhc]

The Loop services would have become 8tph running Blackfriars to London Bridge via the loop but the commuters on the line campaigned against this as direct trains through the Core was more important.

To be fair if the masses who have been subject to years of disruption while supporting the TLP, why would the change to keeping Loop services through the Core not been seen as anything other than the farepayers getting what they want?

Yea they are getting what they wanted. I just said that I'd prefer an increase in frequency if I lived on the line. Thats what most people want, increased frequencies and increased capacity. Just seems odd that they didn't.

That must be rare for the privatised railway, the farepayers having a successful say in their services .

I don't use the line but personally I would have gone for the increased frequency, more trains means you can be on the move quicker from your station, more choice of trains to take which spreads out capacity, and more chances of trains appearing during disruption. I can see why they would rather have through trains, if they get a seat on their branch then having to change to a crowded train later on doesn't seem appealing!

 

[Deerfold]

Read the post, via loop means has stations.

It's clear RichardN did read your post - that's why he was saying a Blackfriars to London Bridge season would need a "not via" route adding to stop it being valid around the loop as well on the services that go one stop.

Most people valve a train direct to work than a change on route which would have eaten up a fair bit of the reduced waiting time.

 

[fusionblue]

What would prevented them running an additional 2tph around the loop from the blackfriars bay platforms regardless?

 

[RichardN]

Read the post, via loop means has stations.

The most direct route doesn't have intermediate stations and a ticket from LBG to Blackfriars direct would also be valid on the entirety of the loop because of the "direct service" rule. I was remarking that tickets for the direct route would have to be labelled "Not via Elephant and Castle" (for example) or else people could use a relatively cheap London Bridge - Blackfriars season from anywhere on the loop. Anyway, this is all academic, as it didn't happen.

 

[Class377/5]

What would prevented them running an additional 2tph around the loop from the blackfriars bay platforms regardless?

The problem is now the bay capacity has been given over to SE services including Catford Loop.

The most direct route doesn't have intermediate stations and a ticket from LBG to Blackfriars direct would also be valid on the entirety of the loop because of the "direct service" rule. I was remarking that tickets for the direct route would have to be labelled "Not via Elephant and Castle" (for example) or else people could use a relatively cheap London Bridge - Blackfriars season from anywhere on the loop. Anyway, this is all academic, as it didn't happen.

As the Loop service wouldn't be advertised in the Core as London Bridge I'm not sure what your point is. Operationally the services would have been Blackfriars - Loop - London Bridge but the trains would have shown Sutton meaning no passenger confusion so the ticketing bit you mention isn't required.

That must be rare for the privatised railway, the farepayers having a successful say in their services .

I don't use the line but personally I would have gone for the increased frequency, more trains means you can be on the move quicker from your station, more choice of trains to take which spreads out capacity, and more chances of trains appearing during disruption. I can see why they would rather have through trains, if they get a seat on their branch then having to change to a crowded train later on doesn't seem appealing!

Your right but shows if you get vocal enough you can make æ difference.

 

[fusionblue]

The problem is now the bay capacity has been given over to SE services including Catford Loop.

Is this actually the case? I was under the impression that SE would have the option to run services through (and maybe stop if they wanted to), not they actually are going to stop at any of the stations via the catford loop.

The 2015 timetable simply mentions "transferring services to TSGN", for example, and nothing else.

 

[Class377/5]

Is this actually the case? I was under the impression that SE would have the option to run services through (and maybe stop if they wanted to), not they actually are going to stop at any of the stations via the catford loop.

The 2015 timetable simply mentions "transferring services to TSGN", for example, and nothing else.

I will have to dig out the reference but read something that said SE will be running services via Catford Loop as the proposed 2tph all day Thameslink Sevenoaks services actually would be a decrease in services for the Catford Loop compared to todays service frequency. The Maidstone East service won't be a stopper like the Sevenoaks service.

EDIT:

Here it is

http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1273/Factsheet 9 - Kent Thameslink services.pdf

From early 2018

• the existing complex Thameslink pattern will be replaced by a regular all-day pattern of 2tph to/from Sevenoaks (all day, via the Catford Loop) and 2tph to/from Maidstone East (in the peaks and limited off-peak hours, with a more limited calling pattern);

• Sevenoaks services will operate through to St Pancras on weekday late evenings and on Saturdays, rather than terminating at Blackfriars as they do at present (but will continue to terminate at Blackfriars on Sundays);

• additional services to/from Blackfriars will be operated by Southeastern in place of the ‘peak extras’ that will cease to be part of this regular Thameslink pattern

 

[swt_passenger]

It's in the Southeastern section of the TSGN consultation response here, on page 56:

January 2018 onwards
[...]
4.134 Those destinations no longer served by Thameslink services, such as
Orpington, will be transferred back into the Southeastern network;
services will be curtailed and run only to and from Blackfriars. Additional
peak services between the Catford Loop and Blackfriars will also be
provided by Southeastern.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/245205/consultation-responses-tsgn.pdf

 

[fusionblue]

Thanks for clarifying - So in 2018 isn't this just going to move the issue of conflicting moves crossing each other on the flat to Elephant (and around it) instead of London Bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for clarifying - So in 2018 isn't this just going to move the issue of conflicting moves crossing each other on the flat to Elephant (and around it) instead of London Bridge?

The crossings will be at Loughborough Jn or Blackfriars. And London Bridge terminating platforms will be full.

 

[fusionblue]

The crossings will be at Loughborough Jn or Blackfriars.

When i mean "around elephant" i meant the entire stretch between Blackfriars to Loughborough Junction. I know platforms at London Bridge will be full etc, but it's been said clearing/reduce conflicting movements was a purpose of the project - except by 2018 you'll have SE services from the bays having to cross services coming from Lougborough Junction and all Thameslink services doing the same from Denmark Hill.

Having two potential pinch points might not make it any easier.

 

[swt_passenger]

When i mean "around elephant" i meant the entire stretch between Blackfriars to Loughborough Junction. I know platforms at London Bridge will be full etc, but it's been said clearing/reduce conflicting movements was a purpose of the project - except by 2018 you'll have SE services from the bays having to cross services coming from Lougborough Junction and all Thameslink services doing the same from Denmark Hill.

NR definitely did originally state that removal of the loop services was to avoid those conflicts. In the South London RUS of 2008 they said:

9.6.1
Owing to the transposed layout of the lines serving the Catford loop and the Herne Hill route south of Blackfriars, the RUS recommends that all services via Herne Hill will need to terminate at Blackfriars. The RUS does not consider it operationally robust to run trains from the Catford route to the new Blackfriars terminating platforms.
9.6.2
Based on the above, the services at present envisaged to terminate at Blackfriars from 2015 {now 2018 of course} are:
4 tph Wimbledon Loop
2tph from Kent House
2tph semi-fast service from the Medway area and/or Maidstone line.

However DfT apparently told them to change their mind, which must have been during 2012 IIRC.

Presumably if NR had real evidence of the problems, they'd have convinced their masters at DfT - and they didn't. This was all discussed in the forum at length at the time the Wimbledon/Sutton loop service to the core was reinstated, as announced in Jan 2013.

Rail Minister Simon Burns said:

The Wimbledon Loop provides a vital service for thousands of Londoners every day, and we have worked hard to safeguard its future after listening to the concerns of local people and stakeholders.

The Thameslink programme is having a huge impact on improving rail services across London and beyond, but the department was always concerned that the initial proposals for this route were not quite right.

I am therefore extremely pleased that Network Rail have relooked at the plans and am confident this decision will provide benefits to rail users for years to come.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-safeguards-future-of-the-wimbledon-loop

 

[DJL]

It's a shame the Blackfriars rebuild didn't introduce 4 through platforms all of which which could be used as bi-directional bays as/when necessary.
It would have given much greater operating flexibility.

Too late now of course

 

[Class377/5]

It's a shame the Blackfriars rebuild didn't introduce 4 through platforms all of which which could be used as bi-directional bays as/when necessary.
It would have given much greater operating flexibility.

Too late now of course

It was looked at and not taken forward.

Biggest mistake is no access to the bay platforms from London Bridge.

 

[DJL]

It was looked at and not taken forward.

Biggest mistake is no access to the bay platforms from London Bridge.

Well I guess the through platforms still could be used as bays if the core was blocked.
Actually - having said that - are the platforms signalled to permit that? I don't recall seeing any signals at the "wrong" end of the platforms.

 

[swt_passenger]

Actually - having said that - are the platforms signalled to permit that? I don't recall seeing any signals at the "wrong" end of the platforms.

I've a downloaded change notice from 2010 that reckoned that the core area re-signalling for KO1 would include 3 aspect signalling for 'wrong direction' moves. The normal direction signalling is the usual 4 aspect, (so two LED heads?), and also has the POSA aspects throughout, so perhaps the bi-di signalling is a bit less conspicuous?

Found a few recent videos and pics that show bi-di signalling at St Pancras LL and City T/L - so it would be odd if Blackfriars wasn't provided with it as well.

Edited to add:

Found a picture on Flickr showing full signalling at the south end of P2 looking towards E&C, so that looks sorted:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/melaniejanelondon/10203489305/

 

[Skimble19]

FCC uniforms are to be retained until the end of March 2015 with the logos covered/removed according to documents released internally today.. Not sure why though, aside from giving themselves plenty of time to make sure they get it right?

 

[infobleep]

Does it say how much the rebranding exercise will cost. I don't suppose they could replace the uniforms as and when staff require new clothes?

 

[Bald Rick]

Biggest mistake is no access to the bay platforms from London Bridge.

We'll have to disagree there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually - having said that - are the platforms signalled to permit that? I don't recall seeing any signals at the "wrong" end of the platforms.

Yes they can both be used bi di.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a shame the Blackfriars rebuild didn't introduce 4 through platforms all of which which could be used as bi-directional bays as/when necessary.
It would have given much greater operating flexibility.

Too late now of course

One man's operational flexibility is another man's increased cost of building and maintaining kit that is used very infrequently.

In this case it was only possible to do by making big compromises elsewhere. In particular the station would have had to be shifted south more than 100 metres.

 

[KneeOn]

Does it say how much the rebranding exercise will cost. I don't suppose they could replace the uniforms as and when staff require new clothes?

Rumour has it, 10-15k on design, tenders etc. Govia were reluctant to spend before knowing if they won the franchise or not.

 

[infobleep]

Just noticed that trains run once am hour during the night to Bedford from Three Bridges and also in the opposite direction. Will overnight services continue under the new franchise. If going to somewhere like Haywards Heath you have to change at East Croydon and get a Southern service.

Also I wonder if they'd be able to run any Thameslink trains south of Three Bridges. There is currently a three hour gap between services heading south from East Croydon.