Ideas to solve Thameslink reliability by reducing its network

[Basil Jet]

Surely idea No. 1 for solving Thameslink reliability should be to get rid of the loop and not add any new ones.

 

[SE%Traveller]

Obviously wasn't lucrative enough to maintain that frequency in these more challenging times.

well no announcement that it has been permanently axed has been given so who knows. But it is certainly an easy one to cut as as off peak only went to Kentish Town so effectively had no impact on the Northern Side of Thameslink. It's the only Thameslink all day service that hasn't been restored.

 

[miklcct]

insufficient platform capacity in peak times



insufficient capacity at all times (as you have doubled the Wimbledon loop)



No, and no.




But it will be extended. For most St Albans commuters, by 30-50%, for example.

How about simplify the number of cross-workings such that trains always go to the same branches?

So the simplified network will be:
Bedford - Brighton: 4 tph
Luton - Orpington: 2 tph
Luton - Rainham: 2 tph
St Albans - Sutton: 4 tph (2 clockwise, 2 anti-clockwise)
Cambridge - Horsham: 2 tph
Cambridge - Gatwick Airport: 2 tph
Peterborough - Kings Cross: 2 tph

So the Peterborough service is truncated to Kings Cross, while all Cambridge services go into the core, avoiding the unreliability of the Peterborough two-track section.

And the rearrangement of branches will mean Bedford - Brighton is a nice 15-minute interval, and Cambridge - East Croydon the same as well.

Elizabeth line won't be running trains across all pairs of branches through the core. Reading trains will only go to Shenfield and Heathrow trains will only go to Abbey Wood. Thameslink should do the same as well.

 

[cle]

well no announcement that it has been permanently axed has been given so who knows. But it is certainly an easy one to cut as as off peak only went to Kentish Town so effectively had no impact on the Northern Side of Thameslink. It's the only Thameslink all day service that hasn't been restored.

Catford Loop was always the 'red-headed step-child' - even more so than the Victoria-Dartford of old, which used to end at 19:38 or so. Basically when Camberwell and Peckham became desirable, those services increased. But Catford and co aren't there yet.

Any route like that in South London (SE especially, with no meaningful tubes) - should be running an even 4tph to a same London 'terminus'. Catford Loop, Vic-Lewisham, Vic-Shortlands slow, Blackfriars to Wimbledon/Sutton each way. Wimbledon of course is way better served but the rest of the loop seems like an opportunity for way more service (and intensification).

 

[Magdalia]

So my revised idea now is:
Welwyn - Sutton (8 cars, 4 tph)
Stevenage - Gatwick (2 tph)
Letchworth - Sevenoaks (2 tph)
St Albans - Sutton (8 cars, 4 tph)
Luton - Horsham (2 tph)
Luton - Rainham (2 tph)

The reason of running 4 tph on Sutton loop is that it is the expected service standard of a London metro service.

How are you going to path the additional Sutton services over the South Eastern Main Line at Herne Hill?
How are you going to path the additional Sutton services through the single platform at Wimbledon?
How are you going to reverse at Stevenage?
How are you going to reverse at Letchworth?
How are you going to serve Welwyn North without using trains going through the core?
Where are you going to use the 12 car trains?

New calling patterns:

Brighton to Cambridge 2tph (...Finsbury Park, New Barnet, Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyn GC, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock, Royston)

Kings Cross to Cambridge 2tph (Finsbury Park, Welwyn GC, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock, Ashwell & Morden, Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth, Foxton)

This means the Thameslink service pretty much becomes a "skip stopping" service, serving all of the well used stops all the way along, and the Kings Cross to Cambridge slow service becomes a fast to Welwyn and a slow from there.

How are you going to stop 12 car trains at New Barnet, Potters Bar and Welwyn Garden City?
How are you going to provide through journeys to/from Hatfield and north of Welwyn Garden City, especially for University of Hertfordshire students?
How do these fit round the Cambridge fasts, giving them a clear path both on the ECML and on the branch?

The Kings Cross to Cambridge service will run on the fast lines, loop onto the slows to call at Welwyn and then stay on the slow lines after the 2 track section

This is such a bad idea that it hasn't been done since the Cambridge Buffet Expresses stopped calling at Welwyn Garden City 50 years ago. It eats into capacity on the fast lines.

You'd also need the Orpington Service on the Catford Loop for the same reason. Pre pandemic it was an all day service but currently only running in the peaks

I did wonder whether the Catford loop required a 15 minute off peak service, and whether it could be done with both Sevenoaks and Orpington trains running to/from the GN. That might require terminating/starting at Finsbury Park with ecs reversals via Hornsey flyover or Bowes Park reversing siding. It is a shame that the Hertford loop is unsuitable for 8 car trains: how about rebuilding Gordon Hill with 8 car platforms, through roads on the outside and 2 bays in the middle?

 

[tbtc]

One of the core principles of Crossrail OS the simplicity. Two branches at either end, rather than the messy proposals that saw a handful of trains to a variety of branches (Tring etc!)

“Keep It Simple, Stupid”

So it’s odd that the expanded Thameslink covers Sevenoaks/ Rainham/ Littlehampton/ East Grindtead etc, whilst Southern/ Gatwick Express so run on the BML (you don’t need to tell me that technically there’s no such thing as these other companies, and it’s all under one TSGN, I know this)

My focus on Thameslink would be to minimise the number of southern branches to create a more reliable timetable with better resilience, rather than leaving the tightly pathed core at the mercy of just about every bottleneck south of the Thames

I don’t care about which far flung places you want to link together (just like I don’t care whether Middlesbrough’s TPE services terminate at Liverpool or Manchester Airport , as long as all of those places get some services through the TPE core, i don’t care whether Bournemouth’s XC services go to Manchester or up the ECML as long as all of these places have links to the XC core…), but it feels to this outsider like the destinations South of London were handed out like confetti with no real strategy or plans to bounce back from disruption

EMR: a complete rehaul of the intercity / connect timetable as follows:
intercity: 1 fast train to each of Sheffield / Nottingham per hour, non-stop to Leicester, and 1 slow train to each of Sheffield / Nottingham per hour, calling at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Kettering, then the usual stations onwards

One problem at the moment is the time differential between the “fast” and “slow” Sheffield services (given the stops at Loughborough / East Midlands Parkway/ Long Eaton…)

Adding in another four stops to the slow service would make it take… roughly fifteen minutes longer than it already does (?), at which point you might as well scrap it north of Derby since it’ll be getting overtaken by the “fast” or have to be so carefully pathed (leaving St Pancras two minutes after the “fast” has departed and hoping it’ll get to Sheffield two minutes before the next “fast”) that it’ll be useless for any long distance passengers

Nobody seriously suggests that the London - Liverpool/ Manchester service stops four times South of Milton Keynes, so I don’t know why Sheffield is expected to have its service downgraded to satisfy local passengers in Bedfordshire

 

[miklcct]

One problem at the moment is the time differential between the “fast” and “slow” Sheffield services (given the stops at Loughborough / East Midlands Parkway/ Long Eaton…)

Adding in another four stops to the slow service would make it take… roughly fifteen minutes longer than it already does (?), at which point you might as well scrap it north of Derby since it’ll be getting overtaken by the “fast” or have to be so carefully pathed (leaving St Pancras two minutes after the “fast” has departed and hoping it’ll get to Sheffield two minutes before the next “fast”) that it’ll be useless for any long distance passengers

Nobody seriously suggests that the London - Liverpool/ Manchester service stops four times South of Milton Keynes, so I don’t know why Sheffield is expected to have its service downgraded to satisfy local passengers in Bedfordshire

Milton Keynes is 80 km from London Euston, the same distance as Bedford from London St Pancras. Some trains also call at Watford Junction as well, and these two places are good places to transfer to a local train.

The first stop on the current Sheffield trains is Leicester, 159 km from London St Pancras, nearly double the distance to Bedford.

Take 159 km into context on other lines, which is about the distance of a non-stop run from London Paddington to between Swindon (124 km) and Bristol Parkway (180 km), or from London Kings Cross to Grantham (170 km), or from London Waterloo to New Milton (158 km), or from London Euston to Nuneaton (156 km).

In contrast, 80 km from London will take you from Waterloo to Basingstoke (77 km), from Paddington to Didcot Parkway (86 km), from Euston to Milton Keynes (80 km), from Kings Cross to St Neots (83 km), from Liverpool Street to Colchester (83 km), by then most long distance intercity trains have already made the first call out of London (Woking, Reading, Watford Junction / Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Shenfield / Colchester) where passengers from local trains can transfer onto.

 

[Trainbike46]

In contrast, 80 km from London will take you from Waterloo to Basingstoke (77 km), from Paddington to Didcot Parkway (86 km), from Euston to Milton Keynes (80 km), from Kings Cross to St Neots (83 km), from Liverpool Street to Colchester (83 km), by then most long distance intercity trains have already made the first call out of London (Woking, Reading, Watford Junction / Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Shenfield / Colchester) where passengers from local trains can transfer onto.

There is quite a few services on the ECML and WCML that don't stop until way further than that, for example the ones that run York or Crewe to london non-stop. Many trains skip both Milton Keynes and watford junction, for example.

 

[SE%Traveller]

I did wonder whether the Catford loop required a 15 minute off peak service, and whether it could be done with both Sevenoaks and Orpington trains running to/from the GN. That might require terminating/starting at Finsbury Park with ecs reversals via Hornsey flyover or Bowes Park reversing siding. It is a shame that the Hertford loop is unsuitable for 8 car trains: how about rebuilding Gordon Hill with 8 car platforms, through roads on the outside and 2 bays in the middle?

Well the Cambridge Slow comes into Finsbury Park 15 apart from the Welwyn to Sevenoaks Service and is restricted to 8 Car too so that could work from that perspective (setting aside reservations about sending anything more down the core all ready expressed)

Catford Loop was always the 'red-headed step-child' - even more so than the Victoria-Dartford of old, which used to end at 19:38 or so. Basically when Camberwell and Peckham became desirable, those services increased. But Catford and co aren't there yet.

Any route like that in South London (SE especially, with no meaningful tubes) - should be running an even 4tph to a same London 'terminus'. Catford Loop, Vic-Lewisham, Vic-Shortlands slow, Blackfriars to Wimbledon/Sutton each way. Wimbledon of course is way better served but the rest of the loop seems like an opportunity for way more service (and intensification).

Yes i'd agree 4 tph to a London Terminal should really be min really...

 

[cle]

In contrast, 80 km from London will take you from Waterloo to Basingstoke (77 km), from Paddington to Didcot Parkway (86 km), from Euston to Milton Keynes (80 km), from Kings Cross to St Neots (83 km), from Liverpool Street to Colchester (83 km), by then most long distance intercity trains have already made the first call out of London (Woking, Reading, Watford Junction / Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Shenfield / Colchester) where passengers from local trains can transfer onto.

Not all places are equal. Reading is a far busier and more strategic interchange (and destination, employment place etc) than Watford, Stevenage or Milton Keynes.

Also distance is a factor. Non-stop services to York and Crewe/Warrington are going to Scotland, so it makes more sense.

A third factor is agglomeration/clusters. The ECML doesn't go through anywhere big (Peterborough the exception) for a long time. The WCML famously has its big cities on loops and spurs. Leeds is too. Whereas the GEML and SWML pass through a lot of important places and have two track sections - Woking has higher usage than Southampton, and Basingstoke and Winchester aren't far behind. Really, they all need fast trains. Same for Shenfield and Chelmsford (even though they are skipped).

I do agree that the MML is a mid-distance, not really long-distance railway and first stop Leicester should be an exception - ie once per hour. Once fully wired, you could probably add a call here or there and maintain current journey times. And if HS2/EMP ever happens, I would expect much more of a regional/semi-fast railway south of EMP - other than this sacred cry for non-stop Leicester runs, which I don't think are that critical. A Bedford call in future for EWR might be worth it - or Luton/AP.

 

[tbtc]

Milton Keynes is 80 km from London Euston, the same distance as Bedford from London St Pancras. Some trains also call at Watford Junction as well, and these two places are good places to transfer to a local train.

The first stop on the current Sheffield trains is Leicester, 159 km from London St Pancras, nearly double the distance to Bedford.

Take 159 km into context on other lines, which is about the distance of a non-stop run from London Paddington to between Swindon (124 km) and Bristol Parkway (180 km), or from London Kings Cross to Grantham (170 km), or from London Waterloo to New Milton (158 km), or from London Euston to Nuneaton (156 km).

In contrast, 80 km from London will take you from Waterloo to Basingstoke (77 km), from Paddington to Didcot Parkway (86 km), from Euston to Milton Keynes (80 km), from Kings Cross to St Neots (83 km), from Liverpool Street to Colchester (83 km), by then most long distance intercity trains have already made the first call out of London (Woking, Reading, Watford Junction / Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Shenfield / Colchester) where passengers from local trains can transfer onto.

You’re not talking about ONE stop though, you’re talking about one of the hourly Sheffield services picking up FOUR stops relatively close to London

IF there was a significant place the size of the size of Reading / Milton Keynes/ Watford/ Peterborough (busy stations, junctions, growing places, important connections like the coaches to Heathrow) then fair enough but the stations on the MML don’t tick all boxes, so demand is split between Luton Airport (erm, an airport), Luton (largest town, roughly twice the size of Bedford), Bedford (Thameslink connections, the hourly Bletchley service) and Kettering (not sure why you want the Sheffield trains to also stop here, but I’ve guess they’ve already made three additional stops, why not chuck in another for luck?)

If you had one station on the southern MML that serves the biggest place/ airport connections/ busy junction/ link to “NSE” commuter trains then that’d be Different, but such things are split between multiple stations when it comes to the MML which is why these proposals that Sheffield services stop almost as many times south of Leicester as they do north of Leicester seem a little unnecessary…

 

[Minstral25]

It's the same as Heathrow Express not running into the Crossrail core, and Hayes & Harlington will see their trains full of Heathrow passengers going to the City in the future.

I'm just copying this model over as now Elizabeth line (former TfL Rail) is the most punctual train company in the whole of Great Britain.

Heathrow Express did not run into the Crossrail core before Elizabeth Line nor after. However, watch the passenger numbers on Heathrow Express once Elizabeth line goes direct through central London - I suspect we will see a fall.

Thameslink has run services from Gatwick through the core since 1988, so it would affect passengers a lot to remove. In reality it is also becoming more and more popular with many passengers now avoiding Victoria as it is not such a useful destination.

Thameslink's issues are in my view mostly because they did not design the network to allow for contingency when something goes wrong. So, when there is a problem it stops almost everything.

 

[Kilopylae]

For me- if it works, leave it.

It doesn't work.

Ideally 12 cars is more suited to Peterborough, though not really needed off-peak.

Potentially fewer LNER trains could be stopped there, to ensure full use is made of the 12 cars.

What is essential is that no matter where they go, the timetable is robust enough to ensure they don’t rack up delay minutes.

The core will never consistently run on time, or at least it will never be an assumption worth gambling the ECML on.

TfL has already said it wouldn't be able to run a reliable service if there are so many long branches out of London.

The major problem now is where to send the 12-car trains from Peterborough / Cambridge if we want to keep them out of the core if Kings Cross is at capacity.

It seems as though your only objection to the Peterborough services running through the core is a desire for TfL to take over Thameslink. But why should TfL take it over?

 

[miklcct]

It seems as though your only objection to the Peterborough services running through the core is a desire for TfL to take over Thameslink. But why should TfL take it over?

Because TfL has a track record in improving train services, including punctuality. TfL Rail / Elizabeth line was the most punctual operator in the latest report.

 

[BrianW]

It doesn't work.

I'm not suggesting that it does work, though I imagine some parts work more consistently well (or badly) than others? Is it clear (and widely?) accepted what it is that 'does not work'?

Re 12-car trains and not needed off-peak: IIRC London 'tube' trains run fixed-formation all day, every day, just fewer off-peak and weekends. Why can't something like that work, whether its 12-car or 8-car or whatever?

To return to my original point- there must have been analysis of 'best' linkages based on assumptions. There must now be some evidence of travel patterns, even with Covid. I will take some convincing that the kind of 'patterns' seen through Covid will be irrelevant. Some locations will continue to be greater 'centres' for working from home.

The Castlefield Corridor Recovery plans identified the kind of limitations and how they might best be addressed. OK so the signalling on Thameslink was intended to facilitate a certain number of tph, and implementation suggested that was too ambitious. Maybe things were rushed into service when insufficiently 'mature'- trains, training, testing , ...?

If we but knew, I iaagine a lot of problems arise out of wanting (needing?) to satisfy ureasonable political demands, eg GWML electrification with insufficient ground examination; 'Beeching reversals'; Ordsall Chord, direct services to Manchester Airport; re-re-reviews of HS2/ 2a/ 2b/ not 2b; Northern Powerhouse Rail/ Bradford/ not. At least TL exists!

Evidence suggests, I think, that folk are prepared to change trains etc if they have reasonable certainty that 'it works'

 

[Bald Rick]

It doesn't work.

It does work.

Not as well as it should, nor consistently perfect, but on the whole it works well.

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps a simplification of off-peak Thameslink mainline services would be for all 8tph to run via the Quarry Line and be the only services from Keymer Junction to Brighton/Hove. An 8tph turn up and go service for the major stations from St Pancras to at least Haywards Heath would seem pretty convenient. Perhaps:

• 4tph Bedford-Brighton
• 2tph Cambridge-Brighton
• 2tph Peterborough-Littlehampton

No Gatwick Express. All services via Redhill, Horsham or Lewes run to/from Victoria. A 6tph via Redhill service would be an easy connection to the 8tph Thameslink service at East Croydon.

Just an idea.

 

[WizCastro197]

Perhaps a simplification of off-peak Thameslink mainline services would be for all 8tph to run via the Quarry Line and be the only services from Keymer Junction to Brighton/Hove. An 8tph turn up and go service for the major stations from St Pancras to at least Haywards Heath would seem pretty convenient. Perhaps:

• 4tph Bedford-Brighton
• 2tph Cambridge-Brighton
• 2tph Peterborough-Littlehampton

No Gatwick Express. All services via Redhill, Horsham or Lewes run to/from Victoria. A 6tph via Redhill service would be an easy connection to the 8tph Thameslink service at East Croydon.

Just an idea.

I don't think no trains to the core (which connect well with intercity services eg St Pancras, Kings X for EMR and LNER/Lumo) will go down very well for us (Redhill) and you are also asking passengers to change at an extremely stressful station onto a train that will probably have no seats (as it is from far beyond and passes though large settlements) for 20+ minutes? It wouldn't work but I appreciate that you've at least tried unlike myself...


Is that 6tph to Victoria? from Redhill/Reigate? I don't think Reigate has that capacity and Victoria definitely won't. I don't believe it'll work on top of all other trains to Victoria from wherever unless there is some sort of attachment/split made north of the Redhill line to minimise trains entering/leaving Victoria. But that is an inconvenience as it just adds journey time.

 

[JamesRowden]

I don't think no trains to the core (which connect well with intercity services eg St Pancras, Kings X for EMR and LNER/Lumo) will go down very well for us (Redhill) and you are also asking passengers to change at an extremely stressful station onto a train that will probably have no seats (as it is from far beyond and passes though large settlements) for 20+ minutes? It wouldn't work but I appreciate that you've at least tried unlike myself...


Is that 6tph to Victoria?

You could also catch the 6tph service to Victoria and hop on the Victoria line if you want a route to the North.

 

[WizCastro197]

You could also catch the 6tph service to Victoria and hop on the Victoria line if you want a route to the North.

Alas another change that most of are able to to but it just adds inconvenience if passengers know that there can be /was a train to St Pancras yet they are asked to get on the stuffy tube to get elsewhere.


Again 6tph definitely will never be possible from Reigate (unless there are significant upgrades) as it will almost certainly overwhelm the station capacity with it only having 2 with one being occupied half the time as a terminator. They will get in the way of the Wetsbound GWRservices.

 

[JamesRowden]

Alas another change that most of are able to to but it just adds inconvenience if passengers know that there can be /was a train to St Pancras yet they are asked to get on the stuffy tube to get elsewhere.

I would think that when they have a wait for a Redhill service in Central London, they might wish that there was a station in London (other than East Croydon) with a 6tph service to Redhill.

 

[JonathanH]

All services via Redhill, Horsham or Lewes run to/from Victoria.

Not really consistent with how East Croydon and Windmill Bridge is laid out though. It would be more straightforward to put all London Bridge services via the slow lines at East Croydon and all Victoria trains via the Quarry, but totally undesirable.

 

[WizCastro197]

I would think that when they have a wait for a Redhill service in Central London, they might wish that there was a station in London (other than East Croydon) with a 6tph service to Redhill.

Yes exactly. The core.


Removing Redhill services from the core is a detrimental idea to the services around Redhill


Victoria services are very popular but so are Thameslink many people like the service as it offers a more centralised array of stations in London rather than Victoria which is quite, when you think about it, far out west.

 

[SE%Traveller]

Thameslink's issues are in my view mostly because they did not design the network to allow for contingency when something goes wrong. So, when there is a problem it stops almost everything.

This is certainly true, though actually on my line (Catford Loop) Thameslink are quite good at ensuring the service runs from Blackfriars South (in the Peaks, its n/a outside). They could communicate that better thought, how much for A whiteboard at St Pancras saying all Catford services are starting back from Blackfriars? you could put it right next to the digital display of times for ECML services from Kings Cross....

It seems as though your only objection to the Peterborough services running through the core is a desire for TfL to take over Thameslink. But why should TfL take it over?

LOL why would TFL want to take it over...

Evidence suggests, I think, that folk are prepared to change trains etc if they have reasonable certainty that 'it works'

Agreed. When nothing via Catford was running through the core a five minute delay on the train (that you already have to be at the station earlier to catch) meant you missed the connection and a 30 minute wait ensured...

 

[WizCastro197]

If we are really theorising how these Thameslink services could be altered, I think if Thameslink were to withdraw from Redhill completely there needs to be an increase in Southern services to the south coast eg that Portsmouth Harbour & Bognor train should run via Redhill all the time like before 2018. (Does anyone recall the reason why it was removed). Creating such services via Redhill removes the necessity of changing at Gatwick Airport and now with the decrease in capacity if there was a withdrawal in Thameslink services is needed to ensure that Redhill line passengers can be treated well service wise. (and get a seat)


I have made a few errors in this please feel free to contradict it

 

[miklcct]

If we are really theorising how these Thameslink services could be altered, I think if Thameslink were to withdraw from Redhill completely there needs to be an increase in Southern services to the south coast eg that Portsmouth Harbour & Bognor train should run via Redhill all the time like before 2018. (Does anyone recall the reason why it was removed). Creating such services via Redhill removes the necessity of changing at Gatwick Airport and now with the decrease in capacity if there was a withdrawal in Thameslink services is needed to ensure that Redhill line passengers can be treated well service wise. (and get a seat)


I have made a few errors in this please feel free to contradict it

Portsmouth / Southampton services should not run via Redhill.

They are long-distance intercity services so the pattern should be the usual London Victoria - Clapham Junction - East Croydon - Gatwick Airport - ...

Redhill is a minor suburban station which shouldn't be served by trains primarily for long-distance passengers.

 

[WizCastro197]

Portsmouth / Southampton services should not run via Redhill.

They are long-distance intercity services so the pattern should be the usual London Victoria - Clapham Junction - East Croydon - Gatwick Airport - ...

Redhill is a minor suburban station which shouldn't be served by trains primarily for long-distance passengers.

Redhill isn't a minor suburban station though?

Portsmouths run on Sundays and are popular from Redhill because of the sparse amount of adequate southerly services we get.
To be fair Long distance passengers who are really going to Southampton or Portsmouth from London wouldn't use the southern services anyway

 

[JonathanH]

there needs to be an increase in Southern services to the south coast eg that Portsmouth Harbour & Bognor train should run via Redhill all the time like before 2018. (Does anyone recall the reason why it was removed)

It was removed because there wasn't room for Redhill passengers to board going to London. The current arrangements are better and changing at Gatwick / Three Bridges / Horsham is not as big an issue as you suggest, particularly once the work is finished.

To be fair Long distance passengers who are really going to Southampton or Portsmouth from London wouldn't use the southern services anyway

Passengers from Chichester and the Arun Valley do though

 

[WizCastro197]

It was removed because there wasn't room for Redhill passengers to board going to London. The current arrangements are better and changing at Gatwick / Three Bridges / Horsham is not as big an issue as you suggest, particularly once the work is finished.

The only viable option is Gatwick to change as by Three bridges/Horsham the train is already too full to board?

But what is the work going to do except create more space at Gatwick Airport so staff don't have to constantly scream at passengers to get back it isn't going to fix the issue of the lack of space on trains which can't be easily rectified.

 

[JonathanH]

The only viable option is Gatwick to change as by Three bridges/Horsham the train is already too full to board?

Which train is too full at Three Bridges and Horsham to board? Brighton trains get busy on a sunny day in the summer but do coast bound Arun Valley trains have standing passengers going south in the morning?