Ideas to solve Thameslink reliability by reducing its network

[London Trains]

Moderator note: Split from

What’s going on with Thameslink?

Cancellations everyday, delayed. What’s going on with it? I usually use the section between London Bridge - East Croydon/Redhill. But everyday there seems to be a problem. They have been using the excuse shortage of train crew for ages now. These trains are DOO so it can only be drivers. Don’t...

railforums.co.uk

Kings Cross to Peterborough is way too long a route to be part of Thameslink, so the Peterborough to Horsham service should be resplit to be Kings Cross to Peterborough and not directly replaced south of London for now.

In the short term, the Bedford to Gatwick service should be extended to Horsham, and call at all stations Purley to Horsham, and the Victoria to Reigate service should be changed to be Victoria to Horsham and Reigate - 12 coaches Victoria to Redhill then divides with the front 8 coaches to Horsham (all stations exc Faygate) and back 4 to Reigate. This additionally solves the issue of the Victoria to Reigate service being 4 coaches.

The fasts and slows should become entirely self contained between Windmill Bridge Junction and north of Gatwick Airport, removing all conflicts on the fasts. The removal of the Peterborough to Horsham removes the unnecessary movement at Stoats Nest Junction.

Balcombe should have a proper contingency for a Southern service to always call there when there is disruption on Thameslink, being the only station south of East Croydon solely served by TL (and not warranting a Southern service to call all of the time).

Luton to Rainham is a route that goes so far away from the rest of the Thameslink network, and brings unnecessary unreliability to the Thameslink core and Southeastern network. The Luton to Blackfriars section can be merged with the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service, bringing back a Luton to Sevenoaks service. Welwyn peak services can be binned off as there are simple alternatives to get to Moorgate (Circle/H&C/Met Line from Farringdon, Northern Line from E&C, walk opposite way from the city to Moorgate instead of City TL).

Littlehampton and East Grinstead peak services can be cut back to London Bridge (and can continue to be operated with 700s if no 377s are available).

My ideas should go a long way to solving reliability problems on Thameslink, with it contained to 3 lines south of London (BML, Sutton Loop, Catford Loop Line), losing the absurdly long Peterborough service, removing some unnecessary peak services, and making sure all stations are adequately served by other services if Thameslink is disrupted.

 

[WizCastro197]

Sorry your post has just reminded me:

Why do Southern Services from/to Reigate dwell at Redhill for so long?

Is it to fill the gap where a service would detach/join?


I am not sure if a Southern to Horsham and Reigate would work…
Sure at first it sounds like a good idea, but the service would make the Bedford 9Rxx almost obsolete or the other way round.
Not to mention that at Gatwick Airport these trains will be become rammed denying space at Redhill and onwards and then again at Croydon…

 

[PGAT]

So 4 coaches from Redhill to Horsham as well as the faff of dividing? Absolute chaos, things would collapse very easily.

 

[London Trains]

I am not sure if a Southern to Horsham and Reigate would work…
Sure at first it sounds like a good idea, but the service would make the Bedford 9Rxx almost obsolete or the other way round.
Not to mention that at Gatwick Airport these trains will be become rammed denying space at Redhill and onwards and then again at Croydon…

Why would it make one of the services obsolete? Plenty of people will be travelling to London Bridge/Thameslink Core and plenty of people will also be travelling to Victoria/Clapham Junction. The current service pattern is an awful lot worse, with unnecessary duplication of Thameslink services and very awkward calling patterns.

Why would the trains become rammed at Gatwick? There are 12tph fast services towards London, all non stop to East Croydon (apart from GX non stop to Victoria). Only people travelling to stations Horley to Purley and probably a few confused tourists would use the service from Gatwick.

So 4 coaches from Redhill to Horsham as well as the faff of dividing? Absolute chaos, things would collapse very easily.

No, there would be 8 coaches from Redhill to Horsham. I am also running both the Thameslink from Bedford and the Victoria service to Horsham so there is much more capacity, not less.

A much, much bigger issue than having 8 (or even 4) coaches between Redhill and Horsham is the fact that the current Reigate service is 4 coaches all the way to Victoria, a massive waste of capacity using valuable paths along the BML.

Dividing is done at both Purley and Horsham every 30 minutes without much trouble. In fact, these services already divide at Redhill during peak times (1608, 1638, 1708, 1738, 1808, 1838 from Victoria) so doing it off peak is certainly not going to cause issues.

 

[JonathanH]

Why do Southern Services from/to Reigate dwell at Redhill for so long?

Is it to fill the gap where a service would detach/join?

No, the dwell is only in the London direction. Its purpose is because a dwell at Reigate would obstruct the GWR service so it is taken at Redhill instead.

Dividing is done at both Purley and Horsham every 30 minutes without much trouble. In fact, these services already divide at Redhill during peak times (1608, 1638, 1708, 1738, 1808, 1838 from Victoria) so doing it off peak is certainly not going to cause issues.

It would cause issues with the Bedford to Gatwick immediately behind (that runs slower in the peak with additional stops).

No, there would be 8 coaches from Redhill to Horsham. I am also running both the Thameslink from Bedford and the Victoria service to Horsham so there is much more capacity, not less.

Southern don't have the spare rolling stock for this.

The removal of the Peterborough to Horsham removes the unnecessary movement at Stoats Nest Junction.

Indeed, much as the service currently offers Redhill its fastest journey time to London.

A much, much bigger issue than having 8 (or even 4) coaches between Redhill and Horsham is the fact that the current Reigate service is 4 coaches all the way to Victoria, a massive waste of capacity using valuable paths along the BML.

Is it a 'waste of capacity' or just a short train that people travelling from East Croydon should avoid?

In the short term, the Bedford to Gatwick service should be extended to Horsham, and call at all stations Purley to Horsham, and the Victoria to Reigate service should be changed to be Victoria to Horsham and Reigate - 12 coaches Victoria to Redhill then divides with the front 8 coaches to Horsham (all stations exc Faygate) and back 4 to Reigate.

Why do they both need to go to Horsham? They would follow each other all the way from East Croydon to Horsham and vice versa. Indeed, I don't think there would be platform space to reverse both trains at Horsham and they would get in the way of the Arun Valley service.

Littlehampton and East Grinstead peak services can be cut back to London Bridge (and can continue to be operated with 700s if no 377s are available).

Platform space is going to be an issue with that idea. That is why the trains run through the Thameslink core in the first place.

 

[BPN2022]

Given there is already 2tph Horsham-Vic, surely just extending the Gatwick-Bedford to Horsham would be better.

 

[PGAT]

Well according to RTT in December, all off-peak trains that would usually terminate at Gatwick now do so at Three Bridges.

 

[WizCastro197]

Well according to RTT in December, all off-peak trains that would usually terminate at Gatwick now do so at Three Bridges.

I think that is a better extension than to Horsham as Redhill line passengers from the South Coast can now change at quieter Three bridges and not busy Gatwick Airport.

 

[PGAT]

I think that is a better extension than to Horsham as Redhill line passengers from the South Coast can now change at quieter Three bridges and not busy Gatwick Airport.

Absolutely agree. Also with a 16 minute turnback it would probably be way cosier than terminating at Horsham

 

[JonathanH]

Absolutely agree. Also with a 16 minute turnback it would probably be way cosier than terminating at Horsham

Another unit would have to be put in the cycle for the OP's plan but that would be released by Peterborough trains no longer running south of London.

There are, of course, merits in no longer using Stoats Nest Junction in ordinary service, and having all trains on the fast run direct from East Croydon to Gatwick Airport, not least that it would allow a full even pattern of services on this corridor.

Moreover, with the reduction in services to the Purley branches, only ten trains an hour would be using the slow lines south of East Croydon which would help reliability. Four trains an hour from Redhill to London would be fine off peak but might struggle in the peak. I'm not sure how the OP intends to deal with this.

 

[PGAT]

. Four trains an hour from Redhill to London would be fine off peak but might struggle in the peak. I'm not sure how the OP intends to deal with this.

Could have some additional services running on the Redhill-Tonbridge line, maybe terminating at Godstone or Edenbridge.

 

[JonathanH]

Could have some additional services running on the Redhill-Tonbridge line, maybe terminating at Godstone or Edenbridge.

What for? It runs half hourly in the peak and hourly off-peak, reflecting demand.

 

[Horizon22]

Ultimately for Thameslink, it is about finding capacity at terminals to accomodate. From the "south of the river standpoint" It may be that Victoria has some excess capacity now - and London Bridge a bit but not loads - and therefore perhaps some service could run into Victoria, but that does mean a loss of connectivity. That being said, people do have the option to change at East Croydon, but it does add a 'interchange penalty' to journeys.

East Grinstead is one that comes to mind as not necessarily needing to run through.

Luton to Rainham is a route that goes so far away from the rest of the Thameslink network, and brings unnecessary unreliability to the Thameslink core and Southeastern network. The Luton to Blackfriars section can be merged with the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service, bringing back a Luton to Sevenoaks service. Welwyn peak services can be binned off as there are simple alternatives to get to Moorgate (Circle/H&C/Met Line from Farringdon, Northern Line from E&C, walk opposite way from the city to Moorgate instead of City TL).

I agree that Luton to Rainham is somewhat two bits clumped together, although that has often been the Thameslink way to increase core capacity. With the Elizabeth Line now open, many will find a shortcut with Abbey Wood - Farringdon. It's a fundamental issue that can't be easily resolved - if there are too many branches and long diagrams that cause reliability issues, but at the same time you want high frequency in the core, how is it best resolved?

Ideally, you run a higher intensity service on just a few branches (the Crossrail model) rather than 4tph from multiple places. I think the bigger issue is strong contingency plans that don't mean decimating one side of the river accordingly. But for that you need some spare capacity at terminating platforms so we're back to square one.

So ultimately it can be done, but would need a complete rethink on what Thameslink is meant to be.

 

[WizCastro197]

Moderator note: Split from

What’s going on with Thameslink?

Cancellations everyday, delayed. What’s going on with it? I usually use the section between London Bridge - East Croydon/Redhill. But everyday there seems to be a problem. They have been using the excuse shortage of train crew for ages now. These trains are DOO so it can only be drivers. Don’t...

railforums.co.uk

Kings Cross to Peterborough is way too long a route to be part of Thameslink, so the Peterborough to Horsham service should be resplit to be Kings Cross to Peterborough and not directly replaced south of London for now.

In the short term, the Bedford to Gatwick service should be extended to Horsham, and call at all stations Purley to Horsham, and the Victoria to Reigate service should be changed to be Victoria to Horsham and Reigate - 12 coaches Victoria to Redhill then divides with the front 8 coaches to Horsham (all stations exc Faygate) and back 4 to Reigate. This additionally solves the issue of the Victoria to Reigate service being 4 coaches.

The fasts and slows should become entirely self contained between Windmill Bridge Junction and north of Gatwick Airport, removing all conflicts on the fasts. The removal of the Peterborough to Horsham removes the unnecessary movement at Stoats Nest Junction.

Balcombe should have a proper contingency for a Southern service to always call there when there is disruption on Thameslink, being the only station south of East Croydon solely served by TL (and not warranting a Southern service to call all of the time).

Luton to Rainham is a route that goes so far away from the rest of the Thameslink network, and brings unnecessary unreliability to the Thameslink core and Southeastern network. The Luton to Blackfriars section can be merged with the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service, bringing back a Luton to Sevenoaks service. Welwyn peak services can be binned off as there are simple alternatives to get to Moorgate (Circle/H&C/Met Line from Farringdon, Northern Line from E&C, walk opposite way from the city to Moorgate instead of City TL).

Littlehampton and East Grinstead peak services can be cut back to London Bridge (and can continue to be operated with 700s if no 377s are available).

My ideas should go a long way to solving reliability problems on Thameslink, with it contained to 3 lines south of London (BML, Sutton Loop, Catford Loop Line), losing the absurdly long Peterborough service, removing some unnecessary peak services, and making sure all stations are adequately served by other services if Thameslink is disrupted.

It is one or the other. Victoria to Horsham or Bedford to Horsham. It isn't possible to have both for numerous reasons. JonathanH has already said the stock isn't there to conduct this and I would like to reiterate my point that if both came to fruition, one would make the other obsolete. The Horsham leg of the journey will be practically empty out of peak as not many people travel from smaller stations except in peak until not reaches Redhill and then there Journey times would be extended by coupling up?

Also at most times 12 coaches isn't really needed because ce train sera empty past Redhill.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2022 ==

No, there would be 8 coaches from Redhill to Horsham. I am also running both the Thameslink from Bedford and the Victoria service to Horsham so there is much more capacity, not less.

A much, much bigger issue than having 8 (or even 4) coaches between Redhill and Horsham is the fact that the current Reigate service is 4 coaches all the way to Victoria, a massive waste of capacity using valuable paths along the BML.

Dividing is done at both Purley and Horsham every 30 minutes without much trouble. In fact, these services already divide at Redhill during peak times (1608, 1638, 1708, 1738, 1808, 1838 from Victoria) so doing it off peak is certainly not going to cause issues.

Yes More capacity but a higher chance of disruption as others have touched upon they would be following each other and it may arise that one train will have all the passengers and the next one that turn up a few minutes later will have none. That is using up valuable paths along the BML.


People should really avoid the 4 coachers at ECR. Aswell as coming away from London. ECR should be only Pickup/Set down on those trains but that would incredibly hard to enforce...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Balcombe should have a proper contingency for a Southern service to always call there when there is disruption on Thameslink, being the only station south of East Croydon solely served by TL (and not warranting a Southern service to call all of the time).

It isn’t. Salfords, Earlswood and Horley are also served only by Thameslink off-peak, and although they have some peak only Southern services, so does Balcombe.

 

[Minstral25]

Kings Cross to Peterborough is way too long a route to be part of Thameslink, so the Peterborough to Horsham service should be resplit to be Kings Cross to Peterborough and not directly replaced south of London for now.

In the short term, the Bedford to Gatwick service should be extended to Horsham, and call at all stations Purley to Horsham, and the Victoria to Reigate service should be changed to be Victoria to Horsham and Reigate - 12 coaches Victoria to Redhill then divides with the front 8 coaches to Horsham (all stations exc Faygate) and back 4 to Reigate. This additionally solves the issue of the Victoria to Reigate service being 4 coaches.

The fasts and slows should become entirely self contained between Windmill Bridge Junction and north of Gatwick Airport, removing all conflicts on the fasts. The removal of the Peterborough to Horsham removes the unnecessary movement at Stoats Nest Junction.

My ideas should go a long way to solving reliability problems on Thameslink, with it contained to 3 lines south of London (BML, Sutton Loop, Catford Loop Line), losing the absurdly long Peterborough service, removing some unnecessary peak services, and making sure all stations are adequately served by other services if Thameslink is disrupted.

The journey times from London are:

NORTH
St Pancras to Peterborough 1hr 19 min
St Pancras to Cambridge 1 hr 10 min
St Pancras to Bedford 1 hr

SOUTH
London Bridge to Brighton 1hr 2min
London Bridge to Horsham 1hr 9min
London Bridge to Rainham 1hr 23min

Peterborough is not especially longer than any other longer distance service, so it is not way too long in comparison to other routes.

Thameslink is very busy providing a tube style network between St Pancras and London Bridge, if you removed the PBO to HOR service then this reduces from 10 trains per hour to 8 trains per hour. The East Grinstead services add an additional 2 tph through the peak period. How would you replace this necessary capacity in central London?

Redhill Route
Also removing 2tph from the Redhill route is not necessarily a good thing. Looking at usage (Subjectively from regular travelling from Redhill) the Victoria service is slightly less or similar loading to each of the 4 tph to Thameslink showing that passengers are now preferring Thameslink trains to Victoria services on a 2 to 1 basis. They are essentially different services from Redhill because they serve different parts of London. The Victoria services do feel more crowded as they are much shorter trains.

Also, the services are far from empty, when an 8 car Thameslink's comes through Redhill seating is relatively full at least as far as Redhill.

Except for 1 or 2 peak services you would not put 12 coach services from Victoria, only 4 would be needed to go on to Horsham as it lightly loaded (most Crawley/Horsham passengers change to the faster Arun Valley service for Thameslink at East Croydon going south and Gatwick going north except those that prefer a single train) so the PBO to HOR service is mostly empty after Gatwick except a few local passengers.

Except peaks between Purley/Coulsdon South and Reigate 4 coaches is sufficient and rarely is there any standing on this section, although again from experience it is 75% seats taken. Obviously Purley to Victoria is very cramped throughout the day.

Whilst the PBO to HOR service infuriates me with its unreliability it would need to be replaced in the Thameslink core and also along the Redhill route. Your suggestion reduces services through Redhill which is very busy, although the section south of Gatwick is not as busy.

Perhaps an alternative would be to turn round one of either the Bedford or Peterborough at Redhill, thus keeping the busy sections through Thameslink and Redhill with appropriate services. The other would extend all stations to Horsham. The issues it would create is that it would reduce Redhill to Gatwick services to 3tph from 5 now.

Southern don't have the spare rolling stock for this.

I think it would take 3 or 4 units to do Horsham extensions, so easily contained with the Peak hour Gatwick extensions which effectively sit in the sidings for the rest of the day.

 

[PGAT]

All these changes being suggested are Compromises. Customers hate compromises. Realistically the best option would either to be do nothing, or directly improve and add a new service. Looking at the state of things, doing nothing is the best option for GTR.

 

[MotCO]

Well according to RTT in December, all off-peak trains that would usually terminate at Gatwick now do so at Three Bridges.

Is this to do with the redevelopment of Gatwick Station?

 

[WizCastro197]

Is this to do with the redevelopment of Gatwick Station?

Probably convenience to be fair, for passengers as Gatwick is far too busy for regular changing passengers but perhaps, no that I think about it could all be the reason.

 

[MotCO]

Four trains an hour from Redhill to London would be fine off peak but might struggle in the peak. I'm not sure how the OP intends to deal with this.

Could have some additional services running on the Redhill-Tonbridge line, maybe terminating at Godstone or Edenbridge.

Is there a direct line from Godstone - Redhill - London, if so, could some of the Victoria - Redhill trains continue to Godstone? (The fact that that is my local station is incidental!)

 

[WizCastro197]

Is there a direct line from Godstone - Redhill - London, if so, could some of the Victoria - Redhill trains continue to Godstone? (The fact that that is my local station is incidental!)

Practically it can happen but it will never. There used to be Tonbridge to London Victoria trains via Redhill before 2018. It will never happen as I believe the Southeastern service was heavily competing with it at Tonbridge but it would be useful for those the RDH-TON line

 

[PGAT]

I mentioned Godstone because trains can turnback (I think) and there probably isn’t enough demand or stock to go all the way to Tonbridge

 

[JonathanH]

It will never happen as I believe the Southeastern service was heavily competing with it at Tonbridge but it would be useful for those the RDH-TON line

The Southeastern service at Tonbridge is nothing to do with it.

Southern decided to run all the through trains to Reigate (and Gatwick in the peaks) and have Redhill to Tonbridge as a self contained service because that was most effective.

Trains terminating at Godstone isn't going to happen.

 

[WizCastro197]

The Southeastern service at Tonbridge is nothing to do with it.

Southern decided to run all the through trains to Reigate (and Gatwick in the peaks) and have Redhill to Tonbridge as a self contained service because that was most effective.

Trains terminating at Godstone isn't going to happen.

Yes But surely low demand from contributing factors such as other quicker services must've played a part in the decision to contain these services between RDH-TON, or otherwise why would they have truncated it?
Yes I know but even if they were to return from Victoria they wouldn't terminate at Godstone anyways surely? But they will never so it doesn't matter...

 

[PGAT]

Trains terminating at Godstone isn't going to happen.

Of course not. None of this will happen, but it’s fun to fantasise at what could’ve been. Also the crossover is at Edenbridge not Godstone. Big L on my part.

Also a big reason the service was truncated was because residents of Nutfield could get to Croydon, Purley, Merstham and Coulsdon in about 15-20 minutes in their car instead of waiting for a 1tph train that’s only 4 coaches and probably more expensive. If trains became more “friendly” for those living nearby then there is loads of hidden demand.

 

[RobShipway]

Is this to do with the redevelopment of Gatwick Station?

I believe that it is to do with the Gatwick Station redevelopment and is an easier station for passengers to change at than say East Croydon.

How many passengers from the changes suggested would instead need to change at Victoria station to use the tube to Kings Cross to then get to Peterborough?

In an ideal world, you would have Thameslink trains from all sort of places going through the Thameslink core to places North of London.

If we are going to go into a fantasy world, why not extend the Brighton - Bedford Thameslink service so that they use East-West rail to say Milton Keynes and either on to Rugby and on to Oxford to give the people of Brighton a service to both these places.

 

[JonathanH]

.If we are going to go into a fantasy world, why not extend the Brighton - Bedford Thameslink service so that they use East-West rail to say Milton Keynes and either on to Rugby and on to Oxford to give the people of Brighton a service to both these places.

Even in a fantasy world that would be an incredibly indirect way of getting from Brighton and Sussex to either of those places.

 

[RobShipway]

Even in a fantasy world that would be an incredibly indirect way of getting from Brighton and Sussex to either of those places.

I know..... But there are times when I cannot believe how and why people would want there to be less trains services on the network, when it is better to be having more services. Yes, there is a need to make sure that the services are appropriate to the custom, but before COVID, I suspect that the Thameslink trains where more than long enough.

I believe there is still pretty strong custom on the main Brighton - Bedford route, so as is I would make sure that the 12 car 700/1's are doing that route, plus possibly the Brighton - Peterborough and Brighton - Cambridge with the 8 car 700/0 trains doing services such as the Horsham - Peterborough. Which is what I believe currently happens?

All these changes being suggested are Compromises. Customers hate compromises. Realistically the best option would either to be do nothing, or directly improve and add a new service. Looking at the state of things, doing nothing is the best option for GTR.

I have to agree.

The journey times from London are:

NORTH
St Pancras to Peterborough 1hr 19 min
St Pancras to Cambridge 1 hr 10 min
St Pancras to Bedford 1 hr

SOUTH
London Bridge to Brighton 1hr 2min
London Bridge to Horsham 1hr 9min
London Bridge to Rainham 1hr 23min

Peterborough is not especially longer than any other longer distance service, so it is not way too long in comparison to other routes.

Thameslink is very busy providing a tube style network between St Pancras and London Bridge, if you removed the PBO to HOR service then this reduces from 10 trains per hour to 8 trains per hour. The East Grinstead services add an additional 2 tph through the peak period. How would you replace this necessary capacity in central London?

Redhill Route
Also removing 2tph from the Redhill route is not necessarily a good thing. Looking at usage (Subjectively from regular travelling from Redhill) the Victoria service is slightly less or similar loading to each of the 4 tph to Thameslink showing that passengers are now preferring Thameslink trains to Victoria services on a 2 to 1 basis. They are essentially different services from Redhill because they serve different parts of London. The Victoria services do feel more crowded as they are much shorter trains.

Also, the services are far from empty, when an 8 car Thameslink's comes through Redhill seating is relatively full at least as far as Redhill.

Except for 1 or 2 peak services you would not put 12 coach services from Victoria, only 4 would be needed to go on to Horsham as it lightly loaded (most Crawley/Horsham passengers change to the faster Arun Valley service for Thameslink at East Croydon going south and Gatwick going north except those that prefer a single train) so the PBO to HOR service is mostly empty after Gatwick except a few local passengers.

Except peaks between Purley/Coulsdon South and Reigate 4 coaches is sufficient and rarely is there any standing on this section, although again from experience it is 75% seats taken. Obviously Purley to Victoria is very cramped throughout the day.

Whilst the PBO to HOR service infuriates me with its unreliability it would need to be replaced in the Thameslink core and also along the Redhill route. Your suggestion reduces services through Redhill which is very busy, although the section south of Gatwick is not as busy.

Perhaps an alternative would be to turn round one of either the Bedford or Peterborough at Redhill, thus keeping the busy sections through Thameslink and Redhill with appropriate services. The other would extend all stations to Horsham. The issues it would create is that it would reduce Redhill to Gatwick services to 3tph from 5 now.




I think it would take 3 or 4 units to do Horsham extensions, so easily contained with the Peak hour Gatwick extensions which effectively sit in the sidings for the rest of the day.

I think that you are missing the need for the services from such places as Horsham within the core Thameslink area in London within the timetable whether it is peak rush hour or non peak time through the day. Within the core the Thameslink trains are heavily used. years prior to COVID, Horsham was identified as a place people commuted from into London and there is places that the trains could be stationed at Horsham train station due to the enlargement that took place back in the 1860's which the adding of lines in from both Shoreham and Guildford. The lines to both Shoreham and Guildford got closed in the 1960's with the Beeching Act I believe? I certainly remember back in about 2006 cycling from Guildford to Shoreham along some of which I believe was the track path of these lines.

 

[Magdalia]

All these changes being suggested are Compromises. Customers hate compromises. Realistically the best option would either to be do nothing, or directly improve and add a new service. Looking at the state of things, doing nothing is the best option for GTR.

In an ideal world, you would have Thameslink trains from all sort of places going through the Thameslink core to places North of London.

I disagree, everything is a compromise. And do nothing is not an option because Thameslink is too complex, too fragile and, as a result, lacks resilience. What's required is a simple and robust timetable by reducing the number of routes that feed into the core, while still getting to a service level of 12 or 14 trains per hour off peak and a maximum 20 trains per hour at peak. That's needed to reap the benefits of all the investments leading up to 2018.

Luton to Rainham is a route that goes so far away from the rest of the Thameslink network, and brings unnecessary unreliability to the Thameslink core and Southeastern network.

I agree. Rainham is duplicated by HS1 and Crossrail, it is top of my list to junk. It adds big risk for a tiny benefit.

Peterborough is not especially longer than any other longer distance service, so it is not way too long in comparison to other routes.

The problem with Peterborough is not the length of journey. It is the interaction with the ECML, particularly through 2 busy 2 track sections, and the lack of options for turning short. I'd want to make Thameslink to/from Peterborough peak hours only, but that may be difficult due to lack of platforms at Kings Cross.

The Luton to Blackfriars section can be merged with the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service, bringing back a Luton to Sevenoaks service. Welwyn peak services can be binned off as there are simple alternatives to get to Moorgate (Circle/H&C/Met Line from Farringdon, Northern Line from E&C, walk opposite way from the city to Moorgate instead of City TL).

I would keep Welwyn GC-Sevenoaks and run it all day. It has never made sense to me that nearly all of the GN/Thameslink services were pushed through the Digswell 2 track section. Welwyn GC is a blindly obvious place for Thameslink trains to start/terminate, and Sevenoaks is good as a south of the river destination for Welwyn GC trains, because both Welwyn GC and Sevenoaks are restricted to 8 cars.

Cambridge-Brighton plus Welwyn GC-Sevenoaks gives 4 trains per hour off peak through the Canal Tunnel, and Peterborough line passengers have options for travelling through the core via changes at Finsbury Park.

I'll let you 3rd rail people fret about Windmill Bridge-Three Bridges!

And my 20 trains per hour in the peak would be everything except Luton-Rainham and Cambridge-Maidstone. The first thing I'd do would be to formally bury Cambridge-Maidstone.

 

[BrianW]

I disagree, everything is a compromise. And do nothing is not an option because Thameslink is too complex, too fragile and, as a result, lacks resilience. What's required is a simple and robust timetable by reducing the number of routes that feed into the core, while still getting to a service level of 12 or 14 trains per hour off peak and a maximum 20 trains per hour at peak. That's needed to reap the benefits of all the investments leading up to 2018.

I agree. Rainham is duplicated by HS1 and Crossrail, it is top of my list to junk. It adds big risk for a tiny benefit.


The problem with Peterborough is not the length of journey. It is the interaction with the ECML, particularly through 2 busy 2 track sections, and the lack of options for turning short. I'd want to make Thameslink to/from Peterborough peak hours only, but that may be difficult due to lack of platforms at Kings Cross.


I would keep Welwyn GC-Sevenoaks and run it all day. It has never made sense to me that nearly all of the GN/Thameslink services were pushed through the Digswell 2 track section. Welwyn GC is a blindly obvious place for Thameslink trains to start/terminate, and Sevenoaks is good as a south of the river destination for Welwyn GC trains, because both Welwyn GC and Sevenoaks are restricted to 8 cars.

Cambridge-Brighton plus Welwyn GC-Sevenoaks gives 4 trains per hour off peak through the Canal Tunnel, and Peterborough line passengers have options for travelling through the core via changes at Finsbury Park.

I'll let you 3rd rail people fret about Windmill Bridge-Three Bridges!

And my 20 trains per hour in the peak would be everything except Luton-Rainham and Cambridge-Maidstone. The first thing I'd do would be to formally bury Cambridge-Maidstone.

I would imagine that the Thameslink route 'threads' that intertwine were dsigned with some idea of origin-destination journeys, frequencies, train lengths, staffing etc would have been given loads of thought at the outset- give-or-take the initial overambition re signalling, route training etc. And surely studies will have been made comparing how things are with what was planned/ expected.

To my mind the major consideration now would be in relation tom working from home and related journey patterns- fewer and longer trains generally? My 'picture' of Thameslink is A to B, C to D, and E to F- not also A toi D and A to F etc. Like the tube folk change trains, eg at Farringdon, and in any case I imagine most get out in the City? Happy to be put right.

For me- if it works, leave it. Over time folk will choose where they live and work (and when) accordingly