Ideas to solve Thameslink reliability by reducing its network

[London Trains]

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 d would be to formally bury Cambridge-Maidstone.

Maybe along with my plans from the first post, the Peterborough to Horsham service could become peak only, running in both directions in both peaks, to directly replace the GN Peterborough peak extras and to provide 6tph to Redhill during the peaks.

Welwyn to Sevenoaks all day is a very good idea, solves nearly all of the issues of the Peterborough service while still providing 4tph through the canal tunnels.

I would then run the Luton to Orpington service all day to replace the Rainham service north of Blackfriars.

 

[Tayway]

I'd swap over the routes of the Cambridge/Letchworth stopper and the Peterborough, with the former going through the core to Horsham and the latter terminating at King's Cross.

The Luton to Rainham can be ditched, with the Gillingham to Charing Cross semi-fast reinstated and the path through the core given over to the Orpington service, which along with an all-day Welwyn to Sevenoaks will give a 15 minute interval service along the Catford Loop.

This gives a total of 16tph off-peak, split 8 to 8 via London Bridge and Elephant and Castle, and 10 to 6 via West Hampstead and Finsbury Park.

Mainline:
2tph Bedford - Brighton
2tph Bedford - Three Bridges
2tph Cambridge - Brighton
2tph Cambridge - Horsham

Metro:
2tph St Albans City - Sutton via Wimbledon
2tph St Albans City - Sutton via Mitcham Junction
2tph Luton - Orpington
2tph Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks

Peak extras can then be added on top of this

 

[PGAT]

Correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of the Cambridge- Kings Cross service that it could be extended through the core and join up with the Blackfriars-Maidstone East services at a later date?

 

[JonathanH]

I'd swap over the routes of the Cambridge/Letchworth stopper and the Peterborough, with the former going through the core to Horsham and the latter terminating at King's Cross.

The practical issue is that the slow Cambridge has to be 8-car for both the bays at Cambridge and practical issues at the halts on the Cambridge line. Peterborough doesn't have that restriction.

Running both Thameslink trains onto the Cambridge route doesn't come without reliability problems of course.

There are good reasons for the Peterborough train to be the one that runs through Thameslink, no matter how much people don't like that.

 

[bramling]

Correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of the Cambridge- Kings Cross service that it could be extended through the core and join up with the Blackfriars-Maidstone East services at a later date?

Yes it was, however the Blackfriars-Maidstone East service has never existed in the planned Thameslink form. Only the northern half has ever existed as a Thameslink service, though I seem to remember paths did appear in a working timetable at one point after 2018.

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

The practical issue is that the slow Cambridge has to be 8-car for both the bays at Cambridge and practical issues at the halts on the Cambridge line. Peterborough doesn't have that restriction.

Running both Thameslink trains onto the Cambridge route doesn't come without reliability problems of course.

There are good reasons for the Peterborough train to be the one that runs through Thameslink, no matter how much people don't like that.

Ideally 12 cars is more suited to Peterborough, though not really needed off-peak. Operational considerations aside, there is no need for 12 cars on the stopping Cambridge services, especially north of Hitchin, where they already run fairly empty at most off-peak times. It is possible to turn a 12-car train at Letchworth, but such trains cannot stable there.

 

[SussexSeagull]

I don't live in London, although I have commuted to there and still get the train up quite a lot for leisure purposes, but fully get that due to the size of the City it has better transport links than anywhere else in the country so I am not in the 'London gets all the public transport money' camp. However, while acknowledging commuter patterns have changed since Thameslink was conceived, if the service is reduce to basically being only a Greater London one it will mean everywhere north and south of London has been misled.

Will also mean, for example, everyone coming up from the south to work will need to get off at London Bridge which will put more pressure on capacity there.

 

[Magdalia]

I'd swap over the routes of the Cambridge/Letchworth stopper and the Peterborough, with the former going through the core to Horsham and the latter terminating at King's Cross.

Correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of the Cambridge- Kings Cross service that it could be extended through the core and join up with the Blackfriars-Maidstone East services at a later date?

Running both Thameslink trains onto the Cambridge route doesn't come without reliability problems of course.

It is absolutely essential that the Cambridge stoppers NEVER go through the core. That's because they are the only trains that stop at Welwyn North, the only station in the Digswell 2 track section. They occupy the 2 track section for about 4 minutes, compared to about 2 minutes for non-stopping trains, so effectively take a double path. If they run late, then queues quickly build on the approaches to the Digswell 2 track section, stuffing punctuality on the ECML all the way to Scotland. The Cambridge stoppers are the most important trains on the ECML for maintaining punctuality, and trains are usually formed on long turnrounds at Kings Cross or Cambridge to ensure a punctual start. Running them through the core would be a disaster.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the number of different threads on potential Thameslink timetables are more complex than the Thameslink timetable itself!

 

[PGAT]

The timetables and routes of Thameslink are actually relatively simple compared to other TOCs

 

[SE%Traveller]

This gives a total of 16tph off-peak, split 8 to 8 via London Bridge and Elephant and Castle, and 10 to 6 via West Hampstead and Finsbury Park.

Mainline:
2tph Bedford - Brighton
2tph Bedford - Three Bridges
2tph Cambridge - Brighton
2tph Cambridge - Horsham

Metro:
2tph St Albans City - Sutton via Wimbledon
2tph St Albans City - Sutton via Mitcham Junction
2tph Luton - Orpington

2tph Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks​

my two cents:
Plan 1:

1. Main:
   1. 2tph Bedford - Brighton
   2. 2tph Bedford - Three Bridges
   3. 2tph Cambridge - Brighton
   4. 2tph Peterborough - Horsham
   5. 2tph Bedford - East Grinstead (peaks)
2. Metro:
   1. 2tph St Albans - Orpington
   2. 2tph St Albans - Sevenoaks
   3. 2tph Luton - Sutton via Mitcham
   4. 2tph Blackfriars (Luton Peaks) - Sutton via Wimbledon
   5. 2tph Welwyn - Bellingham (peaks)

Kept Bellingham for stock rotation up to Honrsy and Catford loop could use it in peaks
transferring Sutton destination from St Albans to Luton reduces 1 conflicting move off peak and allows potential for a (relatively) easy transfer of Luton Services to destination via Windmill Junction if capacity increased using 12 car trains.

Yes it was, however the Blackfriars-Maidstone East service has never existed in the planned Thameslink form. Only the northern half has ever existed as a Thameslink service, though I seem to remember paths did appear in a working timetable at one point after 2018.

Even the residual SouthEastern Maidstone East services go in December, though the Beckenham Junction - Blackfriars peaks comes back, along with a 1 tpd Blackfriars Dartford via Sidcup service

 

[Agent_Squash]

It is absolutely essential that the Cambridge stoppers NEVER go through the core. That's because they are the only trains that stop at Welwyn North, the only station in the Digswell 2 track section. They occupy the 2 track section for about 4 minutes, compared to about 2 minutes for non-stopping trains, so effectively take a double path. If they run late, then queues quickly build on the approaches to the Digswell 2 track section, stuffing punctuality on the ECML all the way to Scotland. The Cambridge stoppers are the most important trains on the ECML for maintaining punctuality, and trains are usually formed on long turnrounds at Kings Cross or Cambridge to ensure a punctual start. Running them through the core would be a disaster.

It isn’t essential at all that they don’t go near the core.

What is essential is that no matter where they go, the timetable is robust enough to ensure they don’t rack up delay minutes. This would probably be an extended dwell at Finsbury Park, for example.

If the units aren’t available to support that, then it shouldn’t go near the core.

 

[dk1]

The popularity of the Cambridge to Brighton service is becoming very evident. I know family & friends that now use this route regularly to get from Norfolk to Gatwick. In Some cases these are new to rail passengers completely. Working trains into Cambridge myself when some Thameslink services arrive & terminate in platforms 7/8 you never think the crowds are going to stop piling onto the footbridge.

 

[Magdalia]

What is essential is that no matter where they go, the timetable is robust enough to ensure they don’t rack up delay minutes. This would probably be an extended dwell at Finsbury Park, for example.

That doesn't work, for 2 reasons.

Extended dwell blocks lines for other traffic.

The Cambridge slows are already slower than at any time since electrification. Kings Cross-Knebworth, for example, is now 42 minutes compared to 33 minutes in 1978.

 

[cle]

The popularity of the Cambridge to Brighton service is becoming very evident. I know family & friends that now use this route regularly to get from Norfolk to Gatwick. In Some cases these are new to rail passengers completely. Working trains into Cambridge myself when some Thameslink services arrive & terminate in platforms 7/8 you never think the crowds are going to stop piling onto the footbridge.

Interesting to hear this. It's a much larger market than Bedford, after all - which has become sacredly paired to Brighton over time - so curious to hear of new uses like this. Airport travel of course, but also Brighton too. Might it be used to get to Heathrow too, for new travellers (vs a car service / driving).

 

[Trainbike46]

That doesn't work, for 2 reasons.

Extended dwell blocks lines for other traffic.

The Cambridge slows are already slower than at any time since electrification. Kings Cross-Knebworth. for example, is now 42 minutes compared to 33 minutes in 1978.

do you know why they are so much slower now?

Is there any chance the 2track sections south of Peterborough are going to be quadrupled anytime soon? where soon means sometime before 2040

 

[Fred26]

do you know why they are so much slower now?

Is there any chance the 2track sections south of Peterborough are going to be quadrupled anytime soon? where soon means sometime before 2040

Surely they're slower because more trains are using the route.

 

[JonathanH]

do you know why they are so much slower now?

Surely they're slower because more trains are using the route.

No, the Knebworth trains used to go fast line between Finsbury Park and Potters Bar but now use the slow line which results in a longer journey time.

Basically 33 minutes has become 41 because of a longer dwell at Finsbury Park and not being able to overtake the stopping service between Finsbury Park and Welwyn Garden City.

 

[Magdalia]

Is there any chance the 2track sections south of Peterborough are going to be quadrupled anytime soon?

Nil chance.

The Welwyn 2 track section has 2 tunnels plus a viaduct that's more than a quarter of a mile long and 100 feet high.

The Holme 2 track section is below sea level with drains both sides that prevent the land from flooding.

 

[miklcct]

My suggestion will be to bin off all of the long distance routes, leaving Thameslink with only the metro / suburban routes such that the whole franchise can be taken over by TfL as Crossrail 0.

My suggested network, to be taken over by TfL, will be the following:

Letchworth Garden City / Stevenage - Sutton: 4 trains per hour, 2 clockwise and 2 anti-clockwise (with one set starting at Letchworth Garden City and another Stevenage), replacing the current trains to Kings Cross / Moorgate
Welwyn Garden City - Gatwick Airport: 2 trains per hour, stopping service to the core, then calling at Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Purley, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick Airport, replacing the current trains to Moorgate
Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks: 2 trains per hour, semi-fast to the core
Luton - Rainham: 2 trains per hour, omit Hendon, Cricklewood and Kentish Town
Luton - Horsham: 2 trains per hour, omit Hendon, Cricklewood and Kentish Town, after London Bridge calling at Coulsdon South, Merstham, Redhill, Horley, Gatwick Airport, all stations to Horsham
St Albans - Sutton: 4 trains per hour, 2 clockwise and 2 anti-clockwise

i.e. a total of 16 trains per hour through the core, with 8 trains in sets of 8 coaches (the Sutton trains) and 8 trains in sets in 12 coaches (the other trains).

The long distance routes have to be taken by the corresponding geographical franchises as follow:

Southern: 2 additional trains between Brighton - Victoria, and 2 additional trains between Brighton - Blackfriars per hour, taking over the Thameslink calls.
i.e. 4 trains per hour between Brighton - Victoria, with 2 Gatwick Express and 2 slow trains, and 2 trains per hour between Brighton - Blackfriars.

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.
connect: 2 trains to Bedford per hour, calling at West Hampstead Thameslink, St Albans, all stations to Bedford to be extended to Leicester when the wires are up; and 2 trains to Corby per hour, calling at Luton Airport Parkway, then all stations to Corby.

Great Northern: All the existing Thameslink trains to Peterborough / Cambridge will become Great Northern services terminating at Kings Cross or Moorgate, while all slow trains to Welwyn Garden City, Letchworth Garden City and Stevenage will become Thameslink services as mentioned above.

 

[Bald Rick]

My suggestion will be to bin off all of the long distance routes, leaving Thameslink with only the metro / suburban routes such that the whole franchise can be taken over by TfL as Crossrail 0.

My suggested network, to be taken over by TfL, will be the following:

Letchworth Garden City / Stevenage - Sutton: 4 trains per hour, 2 clockwise and 2 anti-clockwise (with one set starting at Letchworth Garden City and another Stevenage), replacing the current trains to Kings Cross / Moorgate
Welwyn Garden City - Gatwick Airport: 2 trains per hour, stopping service to the core, then calling at Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Purley, Redhill, Earlswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick Airport, replacing the current trains to Moorgate
Welwyn Garden City - Sevenoaks: 2 trains per hour, semi-fast to the core
Luton - Rainham: 2 trains per hour, omit Hendon, Cricklewood and Kentish Town
Luton - Horsham: 2 trains per hour, omit Hendon, Cricklewood and Kentish Town, after London Bridge calling at Coulsdon South, Merstham, Redhill, Horley, Gatwick Airport, all stations to Horsham
St Albans - Sutton: 4 trains per hour, 2 clockwise and 2 anti-clockwise

i.e. a total of 16 trains per hour through the core, with 8 trains in sets of 8 coaches (the Sutton trains) and 8 trains in sets in 12 coaches (the other trains).

The long distance routes have to be taken by the corresponding geographical franchises as follow:

Southern: 2 additional trains between Brighton - Victoria, and 2 additional trains between Brighton - Blackfriars per hour, taking over the Thameslink calls.
i.e. 4 trains per hour between Brighton - Victoria, with 2 Gatwick Express and 2 slow trains, and 2 trains per hour between Brighton - Blackfriars.

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.
connect: 2 trains to Bedford per hour, calling at West Hampstead Thameslink, St Albans, all stations to Bedford to be extended to Leicester when the wires are up; and 2 trains to Corby per hour, calling at Luton Airport Parkway, then all stations to Corby.

Great Northern: All the existing Thameslink trains to Peterborough / Cambridge will become Great Northern services terminating at Kings Cross or Moorgate, while all slow trains to Welwyn Garden City, Letchworth Garden City and Stevenage will become Thameslink services as mentioned above.

Just a few problems with this:

1) a significant reduction in connectivity for stations north of Luton and Stevenage / Letchworth
2) a significant increase in journey times for stations St Albans - Bedford
3) Harpenden will hate you (reduced service and increased journey time)
4) Wellingboro’ will really hate you (significantly increased journey time)
5) insufficient platform capacity at St Pancras HL and Kings X
6) 4 tph each way round the Wimbledon loop from the core = ’courageous’
7) WGC and most stations south thereof can’t take 12 car trains, ie no good for the 12 car TL trains
8) Moorgate is 6 cars max, ie no good for any trains from Cambridge / Peterboro
9) How do you get Brighton - Blackfriars bays?

plus many more I have forgotten between reading this post and typing.

But other than that, terrific!

 

[bramling]

That doesn't work, for 2 reasons.

Extended dwell blocks lines for other traffic.

The Cambridge slows are already slower than at any time since electrification. Kings Cross-Knebworth, for example, is now 42 minutes compared to 33 minutes in 1978.

Indeed. 32 mins in late 1990s with 317s (albeit rarely achieved in practice, especially after defensive driving came in). There’s a limit to how much padding can reasonably be added.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2022 ==

No, the Knebworth trains used to go fast line between Finsbury Park and Potters Bar but now use the slow line which results in a longer journey time.

Basically 33 minutes has become 41 because of a longer dwell at Finsbury Park and not being able to overtake the stopping service between Finsbury Park and Welwyn Garden City.

They didn’t always use the fast lines. Because of the Moorgate service being every 20 mins, one of the half-hourly 2C/2P services used the fast lines south of Potters Bar, the other used the slow lines, though a few up services crossed at Marshmoor instead.

 

[miklcct]

Just a few problems with this:

1) a significant reduction in connectivity for stations north of Luton and Stevenage / Letchworth
2) a significant increase in journey times for stations St Albans - Bedford
3) Harpenden will hate you (reduced service and increased journey time)
4) Wellingboro’ will really hate you (significantly increased journey time)
5) insufficient platform capacity at St Pancras HL and Kings X
6) 4 tph each way round the Wimbledon loop from the core = ’courageous’
7) WGC and most stations south thereof can’t take 12 car trains, ie no good for the 12 car TL trains
8) Moorgate is 6 cars max, ie no good for any trains from Cambridge / Peterboro
9) How do you get Brighton - Blackfriars bays?

plus many more I have forgotten between reading this post and typing.

But other than that, terrific!

I'm sorry I've overlooked the infrastructure limitation in using Blackfriars / Moorgate as termini and will need to make modification in that.

In such case, the Brighton services will need to either terminate at London Bridge or skip London Bridge (using the Streatham route) to Blackfriars.

Also, doesn't St Pancras HL have the capacity to have 4 EMR connect trains per hour? Isn't this already planned as part of further electrification?

The main problem of Thameslink is it runs too far away from London for problems to be propagated into the core, which TfL has already said it wouldn't be able to run a reliable service if there are so many long branches out of London.

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.

The journey time north of St Albans won't be extended much. For Wellingborough, or intermediate stations between Bedford and St Albans, a change at West Hampstead can be made from EMR onto Thameslink, as the current Bedford pattern is largely preserved into my proposed EMR Connect services, while the Intercity trains will have 2 stops added to compensate for the slower journeys on the Connect services.

The problem of Cambridge / Peterborough is a tough one though - there are too many trains to be handled in Kings Cross and it will be a disaster if they are all cut to 6 coaches for Moorgate, but they are a great source of Thameslink problems. Is it possible to handle this by adding Stevenage stop onto LNER services, like GWR stopping at Reading?

 

[London Trains]

The Cambridge slows are already slower than at any time since electrification. Kings Cross-Knebworth, for example, is now 42 minutes compared to 33 minutes in 1978.

A good way to solve this and reduce journey times for many passengers would be to effectively swap the calling patterns of the Brighton to Cambridge and Kings Cross to Cambridge (slow) services between Finsbury Park and Welwyn GC.

So the Thameslink from Brighton will additionally call at Potters Bar, Hatfield and Welwyn GC (and I have also added a call at New Barnet), and the current slow Kings Cross to Cambridge omits Potters Bar and Hatfield. Welwyn gains 2tph but this is probably justified anyway.

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.

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, and the Thameslink service will use the slow lines all the way.

Thoughts?

 

[bramling]

A good way to solve this and reduce journey times for many passengers would be to effectively swap the calling patterns of the Brighton to Cambridge and Kings Cross to Cambridge (slow) services between Finsbury Park and Welwyn GC.

So the Thameslink from Brighton will additionally call at Potters Bar, Hatfield and Welwyn GC (and I have also added a call at New Barnet), and the current slow Kings Cross to Cambridge omits Potters Bar and Hatfield. Welwyn gains 2tph but this is probably justified anyway.

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.

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, and the Thameslink service will use the slow lines all the way.

Thoughts?

I’m not sure adding extra stops would serve users that well.

Cambridge-Brighton acts as the main off-peak London service from Royston, Baldock and Letchworth, and half the fast London service from Hitchin and Stevenage. All these stations are busy or very busy, and the presence of a fast run south of Stevenage has been long established. 2018 has already slowed journeys down.

The slower services primarily serve stations south of Stevenage, but additionally provide connectivity for some local journeys, for example Stevenage to Hatfield. At certain times of day they also carry school traffic.

Personally I’d be looking to make the Thameslink services hourly, and have the second service of each run to King’s Cross. I’d also look at whether it might be possible to run the hourly Ely service through the core instead, though there would be some issues to be addressed with running 12 cars north of Cambridge. This gives everyone a core service each hour, but retains a reliable King’s Cross service for those who need it. I simply don’t accept the representations that King’s Cross can’t (or shouldn’t) accommodate additional GTR services because of long-distance commitments.

 

[Minstral25]

I'm sorry I've overlooked the infrastructure limitation in using Blackfriars / Moorgate as termini and will need to make modification in that.

In such case, the Brighton services will need to either terminate at London Bridge or skip London Bridge (using the Streatham route) to Blackfriars.

Also, doesn't St Pancras HL have the capacity to have 4 EMR connect trains per hour? Isn't this already planned as part of further electrification?

The main problem of Thameslink is it runs too far away from London for problems to be propagated into the core, which TfL has already said it wouldn't be able to run a reliable service if there are so many long branches out of London.

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.

The journey time north of St Albans won't be extended much. For Wellingborough, or intermediate stations between Bedford and St Albans, a change at West Hampstead can be made from EMR onto Thameslink, as the current Bedford pattern is largely preserved into my proposed EMR Connect services, while the Intercity trains will have 2 stops added to compensate for the slower journeys on the Connect services.

The problem of Cambridge / Peterborough is a tough one though - there are too many trains to be handled in Kings Cross and it will be a disaster if they are all cut to 6 coaches for Moorgate, but they are a great source of Thameslink problems. Is it possible to handle this by adding Stevenage stop onto LNER services, like GWR stopping at Reading?

Think you'll have some holes at Gatwick - which has 4tph fast to the Thameslink core removed. Yes, you are keeping the 4tph via Redhill, but a lot of passengers now use those faster services, especially for the links created not available at Victoria and will be more so once Elizabeth Line runs its full network. Farringdon & St Pancras are key interchanges that a Brighton - Blackfriars service will not cover, even if there was room for them at Blackfriars, they would still require moving suitcases across the station.

Redhill probably won't be happy either as their full trains become even fuller of Gatwick passengers again.

 

[miklcct]

Think you'll have some holes at Gatwick - which has 4tph fast to the Thameslink core removed. Yes, you are keeping the 4tph via Redhill, but a lot of passengers now use those faster services, especially for the links created not available at Victoria and will be more so once Elizabeth Line runs its full network. Farringdon & St Pancras are key interchanges that a Brighton - Blackfriars service will not cover, even if there was room for them at Blackfriars, they would still require moving suitcases across the station.

Redhill probably won't be happy either as their full trains become even fuller of Gatwick passengers again.

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.

 

[miklcct]

Personally I’d be looking to make the Thameslink services hourly, and have the second service of each run to King’s Cross. I’d also look at whether it might be possible to run the hourly Ely service through the core instead, though there would be some issues to be addressed with running 12 cars north of Cambridge. This gives everyone a core service each hour, but retains a reliable King’s Cross service for those who need it. I simply don’t accept the representations that King’s Cross can’t (or shouldn’t) accommodate additional GTR services because of long-distance commitments.

I travelled on a Cambridge service which was delayed for more than 20 minutes in the evening peak (I boarded at St Pancras low level and alighted at Finsbury Park to switch to a service for Welwyn Garden City) once in the past and all of the 12 cars were very crowded. At Finsbury Park, the first service to Welwyn Garden City was a Thameslink service on the peak-only route, and it was mostly empty.

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.

 

[SE%Traveller]

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

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

 

[Bald Rick]

In such case, the Brighton services will need to either terminate at London Bridge

insufficient platform capacity in peak times

or skip London Bridge (using the Streatham route) to Blackfriars.

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

Also, doesn't St Pancras HL have the capacity to have 4 EMR connect trains per hour? Isn't this already planned as part of further electrification?

No, and no.

The journey time north of St Albans won't be extended much.

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

 

[JonathanH]

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

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