London Bridge - new TT not working?

[Class377/5]

OK we'll wait to see what the travelling public make of these trains. I predict a backlash when they start appearing.

When was the last time a new train hasn't had this?

 

[bramling]

When was the last time a new train hasn't had this?

I don't recall massive objection to the class 365s when they arrived on the GN.

I just wish the service was going to be split 50/50 between King's Cross services and those going through Thameslink. Surely this would please everyone, and then the King's Cross services could be formed of class 365s (or 377s would do nicely as well). I'm sure there are *loads* of passengers from the likes of Hitchin that just can't wait for the opportunity for a direct service to Tattenham Corner twice an hour!

 

[Busaholic]

I don't recall massive objection to the class 365s when they arrived on the GN.

I just wish the service was going to be split 50/50 between King's Cross services and those going through Thameslink. Surely this would please everyone, and then the King's Cross services could be formed of class 365s (or 377s would do nicely as well). I'm sure there are *loads* of passengers from the likes of Hitchin that just can't wait for the opportunity for a direct service to Tattenham Corner twice an hour!

Let's not forget the residents of Tattenham Corner with their average of 3.4 cars per household who can't wait for the opportunity to get a train direct to Hitchin and see the North for themselves.

 

[Class377/5]

I don't recall massive objection to the class 365s when they arrived on the GN.

One of the few then.

I just wish the service was going to be split 50/50 between King's Cross services and those going through Thameslink. Surely this would please everyone, and then the King's Cross services could be formed of class 365s (or 377s would do nicely as well).

The original plan was a 50/50 spilt but passenger numbers require greater number to be routed to MML. This is because Thameslink services are only real choice for many, where as GN has Kings Cross or Moorgate.

I'm sure there are *loads* of passengers from the likes of Hitchin that just can't wait for the opportunity for a direct service to Tattenham Corner twice an hour!

Let's not forget the residents of Tattenham Corner with their average of 3.4 cars per household who can't wait for the opportunity to get a train direct to Hitchin and see the North for themselves.

For the smaller services its about linking services together to increase train capacities, terminating services eat capacity that's expensive to provide in zone 1. Comments over people travelling from end to end are missing the point as most trips overlap in Core (expection being the airport services) but very few will travel from end to end.

 

[swt_passenger]

The original plan was a 50/50 spilt but passenger numbers require greater number to be routed to MML. This is because Thameslink services are only real choice for many, where as GN has Kings Cross or Moorgate.

I don't think that's the possible 50/50 split he's referring to. I think the poster was suggesting that of the existing GN Kings Cross services, 50% of them should stay at Kings Cross rather than heading through the core...

 

[Class377/5]

I don't think that's the possible 50/50 split he's referring to. I think the poster was suggesting that of the existing GN Kings Cross services, 50% of them should stay at Kings Cross rather than heading through the core...

Assuming he's talking about the longer distance GN services serving stations north of Welwyn GC, you get a 50/50 in trains to just not from locations;

Off peak
4tph Core to Peterborough/Cambridge
4tph Kings Cross to Cambridge/Kings Lynn

Peak
6tph Core to Peterborough/Cambridge/Letchworth
6tph Kings Cross to Cambridge/Kings Lynn/Peterborough

Not included the stoppers south of Welwyn GC as they don't go to Kings Cross currently.

 

[otomous]

One of the few then.



The original plan was a 50/50 spilt but passenger numbers require greater number to be routed to MML. This is because Thameslink services are only real choice for many, where as GN has Kings Cross or Moorgate.





For the smaller services its about linking services together to increase train capacities, terminating services eat capacity that's expensive to provide in zone 1. Comments over people travelling from end to end are missing the point as most trips overlap in Core (expection being the airport services) but very few will travel from end to end.

377/5, well done for your valiant attempt to explain why trains will be running Cambridge to Tattenham and the like. Trouble is, they don't want to listen. I have lost count of the number of times I've tried to explain that it's about releasing core capacity and terminus capacity, even on the railway itself they don't seem to get it. Yet no-one ever asks, does anyone actually WANT to go from Morden to High Barnet? Or from Ealing to Epping?

 

[bramling]

377/5, well done for your valiant attempt to explain why trains will be running Cambridge to Tattenham and the like. Trouble is, they don't want to listen. I have lost count of the number of times I've tried to explain that it's about releasing core capacity and terminus capacity, even on the railway itself they don't seem to get it. Yet no-one ever asks, does anyone actually WANT to go from Morden to High Barnet? Or from Ealing to Epping?

Morden to High Barnet is one thing, as you are talking about a closed system, where all trains follow the same stopping pattern, and there are only two key junctions, Camden Town and Kennington, both of which are fully grade-separated. Thameslink will join together three separate regions, each of which have enough operating complexities on their own.

Additional terminal capacity could be created at King's Cross by extending the remaining current Great Northern 'outer' trains from 8-car trains to 12-cars, platforms 0 to 8 at King's Cross are capable of supporting this, and I'm given to believe the main constraint at present is insufficient rolling stock now that most of the key platforms have been lengthened.

On the GN side alone, I can see the mix of stopping patterns will start to cause chaos if any train presents itself off Thameslink more than a couple of minutes late. Already this means Up journeys in to King's Cross are notoriously unpredictable, at least at present most Down journeys tend to run on time due to the likelihood that most trains depart King's Cross on time and in the correct order.

 

[otomous]

Yes that's why they're rebuilding London Bridge, Farringdon, Blackfriars, and building a Bermondsey diveunder, implementing new signalling, reversible running and ATO in the core and fixed length open plan trains that will show passengers where there is space on the train.

 

[bramling]

Yes that's why they're rebuilding London Bridge, Farringdon, Blackfriars, and building a Bermondsey diveunder, implementing new signalling, reversible running and ATO in the core and fixed length open plan trains that will show passengers where there is space on the train.

This may reduce some conflicting moves at Blackfriars, Borough Market and Bermondsey, but still leaves plenty of conflicts elsewhere on the three areas being joined together.

GN side
Watlington to King's Lynn (single line)
Littleport to Downham (single line)
Ely North (I seem to recall some work being done here recently?)
Cambridge to Hitchin (mix of 3 stopping patterns on 2 tracks)
Letchworth (flat junction in and out of sidings for terminating / starting services)
Hitchin (still a pinch point as only one platform each direction, up fast trains ex Cambridge effectively cross up slow trains ex Peterborough on the level, as well as up fast trains needing to tie in with East Coast services, some of which call at Stevenage whereas the Cambridge services don't)
Woolmer Green to Digswell (2 tracks with a station in the middle)
Slow lines south of Welwyn GC (shared with all stations Moorgate service)
Fast lines south of Potters Bar (mix of stopping patterns)
Peterborough (tie in with East Coast and freight)

Midland side
Mix of stopping patterns, with slow turnouts between the tracks all conflicting because the tracks are paired by use / tie in with East Midlands Trains.

Southern side
Balcombe Tunnel Junction to Brighton (2 tracks / mix of stopping patterns)
Three Bridges (flat junction)
Gatwick Airport (flat junction)
Redhill (flat junction)
Stoats Nest Junction (flat junction)
Purley (flat junctions)
East Croydon to Norwood Junction (2 fast tracks)

The above is all off the top of the head - I'm sure there's plenty more to add. Even take away half of those constraints and it's asking a lot for it all to work smoothly.

 

[otomous]

This may reduce some conflicting moves at Blackfriars, Borough Market and Bermondsey, but still leaves plenty of conflicts elsewhere on the three areas being joined together.

GN side
Watlington to King's Lynn (single line)
Littleport to Downham (single line)
Ely North (I seem to recall some work being done here recently?)
Cambridge to Hitchin (mix of 3 stopping patterns on 2 tracks)
Letchworth (flat junction in and out of sidings for terminating / starting services)
Hitchin (still a pinch point as only one platform each direction, up fast trains ex Cambridge effectively cross up slow trains ex Peterborough on the level, as well as up fast trains needing to tie in with East Coast services, some of which call at Stevenage whereas the Cambridge services don't)
Woolmer Green to Digswell (2 tracks with a station in the middle)
Slow lines south of Welwyn GC (shared with all stations Moorgate service)
Fast lines south of Potters Bar (mix of stopping patterns)
Peterborough (tie in with East Coast and freight)

Midland side
Mix of stopping patterns, with slow turnouts between the tracks all conflicting because the tracks are paired by use / tie in with East Midlands Trains.

Southern side
Balcombe Tunnel Junction to Brighton (2 tracks / mix of stopping patterns)
Three Bridges (flat junction)
Gatwick Airport (flat junction)
Redhill (flat junction)
Stoats Nest Junction (flat junction)
Purley (flat junctions)
East Croydon to Norwood Junction (2 fast tracks)

The above is all off the top of the head - I'm sure there's plenty more to add. Even take away half of those constraints and it's asking a lot for it all to work smoothly.

Yes but what you have done there is describe more or less an entire system which is timetabled with these constraints in mind and largely works. The worst part will be in the core because that is where all the routes converge, and therefore that's where most of the work is being done. You could list all the conflicts for Southern services in and out of Victoria and get a list as long as the proverbial, but even in the peaks, assuming no external major problems, they largely roll in and out of Vic unscathed despite pretty much playing peek a boo with the train in front from Streatham North Junction onwards. We're never going to get perfection, there are just too many unknowns. Allow for them all and we'd run out of minutes in the hour in terms of spacing services. You just can't allow for say, two suicides and a tree down; or a major power failure and a signalling issue. All you can do is try to make as much as possible as robust as possible within the confines of the budget and time allowed.

 

[Stats]

Assuming he's talking about the longer distance GN services serving stations north of Welwyn GC, you get a 50/50 in trains to just not from locations;

Off peak
4tph Core to Peterborough/Cambridge
4tph Kings Cross to Cambridge/Kings Lynn

I thought the proposed off-peak service pattern was
6tph Core to Peterborough/Cambridge
2tph Kings Cross to Kings Lynn

 

[bramling]

Yes but what you have done there is describe more or less an entire system which is timetabled with these constraints in mind and largely works. The worst part will be in the core because that is where all the routes converge, and therefore that's where most of the work is being done. You could list all the conflicts for Southern services in and out of Victoria and get a list as long as the proverbial, but even in the peaks, assuming no external major problems, they largely roll in and out of Vic unscathed despite pretty much playing peek a boo with the train in front from Streatham North Junction onwards. We're never going to get perfection, there are just too many unknowns. Allow for them all and we'd run out of minutes in the hour in terms of spacing services. You just can't allow for say, two suicides and a tree down; or a major power failure and a signalling issue. All you can do is try to make as much as possible as robust as possible within the confines of the budget and time allowed.

The point I am trying to make is that, unlike today, a 15-minute delay incurred somewhere on the Brighton line will now result in a guaranteed 15-minute delay going north on to the GN side. This simply does not happen today as that sort of delay is generally absorbed by the turnround time at King's Cross.

Hypothetically, this late train is now caught up by the non-stop Cambridge a
/ King's Lynn train on the double track Cambridge branch, and now that train is late. This now affects the up service from King's Lynn because of the single-track sections. Now a regulating decision is required at Cambridge on the up as to whether to hold the Tattenham Corner all-stations train to avoid it delaying the KX train.

These are real issues which will occur, combined with trains inferior to today (even the TOC is apparently raising concerns about the interior design presumably because they know the passengers will see it as down to them) and the loss of the ability to board the down train in comfort at King's Cross, and the fact that most of the Southern destinations are not particularly useful (e.g. Tattenham Corner) and those which are can already be reached with one change, I'm sure you can understand why I'd rather say "no thanks" and keep what is already a comfortable and reliable service.

 

[Bald Rick]

The point I am trying to make is that, unlike today, a 15-minute delay incurred somewhere on the Brighton line will now result in a guaranteed 15-minute delay going north on to the GN side. This simply does not happen today as that sort of delay is generally absorbed by the turnround time at King's Cross.

Hypothetically, this late train is now caught up by the non-stop Cambridge a
/ King's Lynn train on the double track Cambridge branch, and now that train is late. This now affects the up service from King's Lynn because of the single-track sections. Now a regulating decision is required at Cambridge on the up as to whether to hold the Tattenham Corner all-stations train to avoid it delaying the KX train.

These are real issues which will occur, combined with trains inferior to today (even the TOC is apparently raising concerns about the interior design presumably because they know the passengers will see it as down to them) and the loss of the ability to board the down train in comfort at King's Cross, and the fact that most of the Southern destinations are not particularly useful (e.g. Tattenham Corner) and those which are can already be reached with one change, I'm sure you can understand why I'd rather say "no thanks" and keep what is already a comfortable and reliable service.

Look back to 1986 and a variety of commentators, including people in BR, said much the same about the reopening of Snow Hill tunnel, connecting the flawless MML to the ramshackle Southern.

And guess what? It generally works just fine.

 

[bramling]

Look back to 1986 and a variety of commentators, including people in BR, said much the same about the reopening of Snow Hill tunnel, connecting the flawless MML to the ramshackle Southern.

And guess what? It generally works just fine.

When I used Thameslink for 7 years I never found it particularly reliable. Occasional days of complete chaos, but otherwise not uncommon to find trains turn up late. Just about ok on a 15-minute headway, less acceptable on a 30-minute headway such as to Cambridge and Peterborough, especially a service where generally users have been used to reasonable reliability especially in the down direction.

Any look at current and historical performance figures will show that none of the TOCs involved in this scheme are good performers in the scheme of things, so I would dispute that Thameslink has worked 'just fine'. Joining together three of some of the consistently worst performing areas does not exactly bode well!

 

[Class 170101]

I understood Kings Lynn services had been removed from the Thameslink core and will terminate at Kings Cross (High Level) so the issues of single lead junctions and single lines north of Cambridge goes away.

 

[Class377/5]

The point I am trying to make is that, unlike today, a 15-minute delay incurred somewhere on the Brighton line will now result in a guaranteed 15-minute delay going north on to the GN side. This simply does not happen today as that sort of delay is generally absorbed by the turnround time at King's Cross.

15min delay does not guarantee a delay on the other side of the Core. Claiming that is quite frankly a lie. It can cause a delay depending on where it happened. I know this as a fact as I've recovered a delay like this and not ben late leaving the Core.

Hypothetically, this late train is now caught up by the non-stop Cambridge a
/ King's Lynn train on the double track Cambridge branch, and now that train is late. This now affects the up service from King's Lynn because of the single-track sections. Now a regulating decision is required at Cambridge on the up as to whether to hold the Tattenham Corner all-stations train to avoid it delaying the KX train.

These are real issues which will occur, combined with trains inferior to today (even the TOC is apparently raising concerns about the interior design presumably because they know the passengers will see it as down to them) and the loss of the ability to board the down train in comfort at King's Cross, and the fact that most of the Southern destinations are not particularly useful (e.g. Tattenham Corner) and those which are can already be reached with one change, I'm sure you can understand why I'd rather say "no thanks" and keep what is already a comfortable and reliable service.

Your making a lot of assumptions in your post while continuing to miss the point. Things won't work the same today as in 2018, there's a massive change coming.

That's without the fact most stations will still have a service from Kings Cross. The current bit unknown is just how many GN commuters will be better off on a Thameslink service, avoiding using the Tube or NCL to reach the city.

Your refusal to try and listen to destinations undermines your entire post. Can you not get the simple point that one terminating train requires 10-15mins to be turned around. By linking services together you can have 4-5 train in the same period through one platform increasing capacity (trains run) by 4-5 times. You can't add termination capacity in Central London on this level.

Yes but what you have done there is describe more or less an entire system which is timetabled with these constraints in mind and largely works. The worst part will be in the core because that is where all the routes converge, and therefore that's where most of the work is being done. You could list all the conflicts for Southern services in and out of Victoria and get a list as long as the proverbial, but even in the peaks, assuming no external major problems, they largely roll in and out of Vic unscathed despite pretty much playing peek a boo with the train in front from Streatham North Junction onwards. We're never going to get perfection, there are just too many unknowns. Allow for them all and we'd run out of minutes in the hour in terms of spacing services. You just can't allow for say, two suicides and a tree down; or a major power failure and a signalling issue. All you can do is try to make as much as possible as robust as possible within the confines of the budget and time allowed.

The whole post on locations is a joke as some aren't affected by Thameslink services but ignores other places. Slow lines south of Welwyn GC is one example here two all stations services will mix, can't understand how anyone sees that as a major issue.

I thought the proposed off-peak service pattern was
6tph Core to Peterborough/Cambridge
2tph Kings Cross to Kings Lynn

Actually its not what either of us put. Its the following on the outer services;

Thameslink
2tph to Peterborough
2tph to Cambridge
2tph to Cambridge

Great Northern
2tph to Kings Lynn (most of time)
2tph to Cambridge stopper
2tph to Peterborough (peak)

 

[greatkingrat]

They can still have a knock-on effect though, if a train from Kings Lynn is late, the Thameslink train from Cambridge may be held to let it go first.

 

[Class377/5]

They can still have a knock-on effect though, if a train from Kings Lynn is late, the Thameslink train from Cambridge may be held to let it go first.

So can an East Coast service, but I don't see anyone suggesting EC services shouldn't run through to London.

That's ignoring in your example that being part of Thameslink would make no difference to that regulation decision.

 

[bramling]

So can an East Coast service, but I don't see anyone suggesting EC services shouldn't run through to London.

That's ignoring in your example that being part of Thameslink would make no difference to that regulation decision.

Not quite true, because in the scenario I gave the root cause of the delay was a late running northbound train ex Thameslink where the delays cascaded through the system ultimately affecting the southbound service. (OK I know it could have happened if the original train had been late ex King's Cross as well, but *less**likely*).

All I hear is 'things will be different', but no one seems to actually say what will be so different, the mix of service on the GN side will be the basically identical to today, on basically the same track layout, just with a greater chance of imported delays. Work at places like FP-AP, Hitchin and Cambridge has made a marginal improvement, but it doesn't deal with the issue of delays accumulating because of faster services catching up with slower services.

 

[Class377/5]

Not quite true, because in the scenario I gave the root cause of the delay was a late running northbound train ex Thameslink where the delays cascaded through the system ultimately affecting the southbound service. (OK I know it could have happened if the original train had been late ex King's Cross as well, but *less**likely*).

All I hear is 'things will be different', but no one seems to actually say what will be so different, the mix of service on the GN side will be the basically identical to today, on basically the same track layout, just with a greater chance of imported delays. Work at places like FP-AP, Hitchin and Cambridge has made a marginal improvement, but it doesn't deal with the issue of delays accumulating because of faster services catching up with slower services.

Why is it less likely? Depending on cause it could be just as likely. Your making too wide a statement and expecting it to be true. Again based on assumptions.

Of course no-one knows how it will be different. Those who are responsible for how are in the process of making the strategy up now. It takes time to properly develop thing but also required the new TOC to be part. Frankly Your may never know depending on if your staff or passenger.

As for comparing things today, well trains the accelerate faster are better at recovering compared today. Add in the separation of inner and outer services on GN will help too.

 

[bramling]

15min delay does not guarantee a delay on the other side of the Core. Claiming that is quite frankly a lie. It can cause a delay depending on where it happened. I know this as a fact as I've recovered a delay like this and not ben late leaving the Core.



Your making a lot of assumptions in your post while continuing to miss the point. Things won't work the same today as in 2018, there's a massive change coming.

That's without the fact most stations will still have a service from Kings Cross. The current bit unknown is just how many GN commuters will be better off on a Thameslink service, avoiding using the Tube or NCL to reach the city.

Your refusal to try and listen to destinations undermines your entire post. Can you not get the simple point that one terminating train requires 10-15mins to be turned around. By linking services together you can have 4-5 train in the same period through one platform increasing capacity (trains run) by 4-5 times. You can't add termination capacity in Central London on this level.



The whole post on locations is a joke as some aren't affected by Thameslink services but ignores other places. Slow lines south of Welwyn GC is one example here two all stations services will mix, can't understand how anyone sees that as a major issue.



Actually its not what either of us put. Its the following on the outer services;

Thameslink
2tph to Peterborough
2tph to Cambridge
2tph to Cambridge

Great Northern
2tph to Kings Lynn (most of time)
2tph to Cambridge stopper
2tph to Peterborough (peak)

For the slow lines south of WGC, it's *not* two all-stations services. One service group calls at all stations, the other calls at Hatfield and Potters Bar only. From a timetable point of view, this gives three options (based on the current track layout, anyone know if any relevant changes are planned?).

1) Fast line FP to PB, then slow line north.
2) Fast line FP to WGC, then slow line north. (only works northbound due to platform layout at Hatfield, and likely to cause severe delay to other services on the fast line)
3) Slow line all the way.

We don't yet know whether the timetable will see option (3) preferred, or option (1), or a mix of the two like today.

All ok subject to everything working to timetable, but if one or the other service runs off path, a regulating decision has to be made, either
1) Leave the faster service behind the slower one
2) Unplanned utilisation of the fast line

The first of those options will result in possibly a severe delay, the second will also quite possibly result in a delay if the slow service has to wait for several fast-line trains to pass before a suitable path becomes vacant. In the down direction, a delayed service through this section later has to wait for a suitable path through Digswell-Woolmer Green, not helped by a call at Welwyn North. Later, the delayed and off-book service will also have to share the single down platform at Hitchin, as well has having to find a path on the Cambridge line without delaying either a semi-fast or non-stop service. No infrastructure changes here either!

Of course none of this will happen because any delay off the Southern side will be easily recovered with no difficulty at all and the train will magically be on time by the time it passes on to the GN side. Sorry but no way this sort of recovery will happen as a matter of routine, unless regular use is made of non-stopping which I'm sure will be very popular with passengers, and in any case unfeasible in the busy core section except maybe at the extremes of the day.

 

[Bald Rick]

All I hear is 'things will be different', but no one seems to actually say what will be so different

What will be different:

1) the timetable (very)
2) the frequencies on the ECML. Almost all stations on the GN side of Thameslink will see an improved frequency, which means if one train is late, another one will be along soon(er than today). If you want a tip, buy a house in Welwyn GC.
3) the information and systems available to controllers and signallers, such that the implications of their decision making will be very clear before they confirm the decision helping them to minimise reactionary delay
4) the customer information systems (very)

Now you could say all this could be done without linking the services across London. And except for (2) it could, although Thameslink has been the driving force behind making them all happen.

It is also true to say that it is possible that performance will be lower than if the GN remained a separate railway. But the Thameslink experience is that this is lost in the roundings. Indeed for the last two years the Thameslink services have performed better than the GN.

However, when the good folk of Hatfield, Welywn, Stevenage, Royston, Cambridge etc etc see they can get on a train and be direct to 5 Central London stations plus Gatwick, and with one simple change get (quickly) to Canary Wharf, Stratford and Heathrow, without touching the tube, I suspect on balance they will be happier with their service than today.

Personally, it can't come soon enough.

 

[bramling]

Why is it less likely? Depending on cause it could be just as likely. Your making too wide a statement and expecting it to be true. Again based on assumptions.

Of course no-one knows how it will be different. Those who are responsible for how are in the process of making the strategy up now. It takes time to properly develop thing but also required the new TOC to be part. Frankly Your may never know depending on if your staff or passenger.

As for comparing things today, well trains the accelerate faster are better at recovering compared today. Add in the separation of inner and outer services on GN will help too.

Hmm I'm not convinced faster acceleration will make that much difference. Perhaps a bit, but not much help when running on restrictive signals following another service, or on wet rails, etc.

In any case, as demonstrated elsewhere, the GN inner and outer services are *not* being separated. As stated elsewhere, whilst the actual timetable may be different, the proposed stopping patterns are almost identical to today. Perhaps full segregation of the Hertford service could prove useful (but no platforms at Hornsey and Harringay on the new tracks so these stations would rely on the WGC service or have to conflict at Alexandra Palace), but there is still going to be a massive mix of stopping patterns more or less everywhere north of Finsbury Park.

Less trains through the core and more comfortable rolling stock, and the project could represent a massive improvement. Generally most peak services out of King's Cross are *not* exceptionally heavily loaded compared to other routes, some of the fast Cambridge services being the exception. Most off-peak services continue to use 4-car trains. Many off-peak Hertford and WGC services are so lightly used that 3-car trains are deemed sufficient. A lot of issues could be resolved with additional rolling stock, it's a shame the class 365was never built in larger numbers as they are generally a reliable, comfortable and popular train, a few niggles apart.

Does anyone know if there are any plans to re-double the single-track sections north of Ely? With any increase in service on the route planned, sooner or later this will *have* to happen as there will come a point when the knock-on delays become unacceptable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understood Kings Lynn services had been removed from the Thameslink core and will terminate at Kings Cross (High Level) so the issues of single lead junctions and single lines north of Cambridge goes away.

Not so unfortunately, as the King's Lynn service (now planned to increase to 2tph) will still interface with Thameslink on the long double-track section from Cambridge to Hitchin, crossing the Peterborough-Horsham service on the level at Hitchin, and interfacing with other services through Woolmer Green-Digswell.

It's actually quite easy to work out what the eventual timetable may look like, as based on current running times (stopping patterns not changing) there's only so many options for how the 6tph on the Cambridge branch can be arranged. It's quite interesting then to put in some small delays and see what the effects will be at locations like Hitchin or Digswell. I hope the King's Lynn services will have plenty of recovery time built in to the journey and long layovers at each end, as it appears they may require plenty of slack for recovery purposes! In the long run I suspect these services will slow down considerably and possibly gain extra stops off-peak, also at some point some kind of overtaking facility on the Cambridge branch will likely have to be provided, as well as redoubling the single-track sections north of Ely.

 

[Stats]

Actually its not what either of us put. Its the following on the outer services;

Thameslink
2tph to Peterborough
2tph to Cambridge
2tph to Cambridge

Great Northern
2tph to Kings Lynn (most of time)
2tph to Cambridge stopper
2tph to Peterborough (peak)

Where did this off-peak GN Cambridge stopper come from? It is not mentioned in either GTR's route plans or the ICEC ITT?

Off-peak, Cambridge will receive 6tph to and from central
London, up from 4tph at present. These services will
provide a range of stopping patterns, with 2tph continuing
to operate non-stop from London to Cambridge

D) 8tph over Welwyn Viaduct northbound in each hour 0700 to 1559 and from 1900 to 2159
with 1tph additional 1900 to 1959 (measured at King’s Cross or St Pancras)
 4tph (2 each to Peterborough and to Cambridge) run from the Thameslink core, running fast line from Finsbury Park to Woolmer Green Junction non-stop;
 1tph from Kings Cross to Peterborough, in the 1900 to 1959 hour only;
 2tph Cambridge Express, running fast line, non-stop, from King’s Cross to Hitchin Flyover; and
 2tph to Cambridge line from Thameslink core, running fast line only from Finsbury Park to Potters Bar, and then from Digswell Junction to Woolmer Green Junction (calling at Welwyn North)

 

[Class377/5]

For the slow lines south of WGC, it's *not* two all-stations services. One service group calls at all stations, the other calls at Hatfield and Potters Bar only. From a timetable point of view, this gives three options (based on the current track layout, anyone know if any relevant changes are planned?).

Your assuming. Come 2018 the two will be separated. The inners will be all stations with the outers being the express until Welwyn GC.

And it is two all stations services, one to Moorgate and another to Thameslink.

1) Fast line FP to PB, then slow line north.
2) Fast line FP to WGC, then slow line north. (only works northbound due to platform layout at Hatfield, and likely to cause severe delay to other services on the fast line)
3) Slow line all the way.

We don't yet know whether the timetable will see option (3) preferred, or option (1), or a mix of the two like today.

I'm not the poster who has seen the final timetable so can't answer directly. What I do know is the timetable will be tested heavily prior to use.

All ok subject to everything working to timetable, but if one or the other service runs off path, a regulating decision has to be made, either
1) Leave the faster service behind the slower one
2) Unplanned utilisation of the fast line

What's the difference from today then? Your suggesting things can't change because delays happen? Sorry that just stupid. There is significant changes in operations coming that will allow these decisions to be made faster. Ok you still have last minute, but nothing will ever change that so its an failed argument a against change.

The first of those options will result in possibly a severe delay, the second will also quite possibly result in a delay if the slow service has to wait for several fast-line trains to pass before a suitable path becomes vacant. In the down direction, a delayed service through this section later has to wait for a suitable path through Digswell-Woolmer Green, not helped by a call at Welwyn North. Later, the delayed and off-book service will also have to share the single down platform at Hitchin, as well has having to find a path on the Cambridge line without delaying either a semi-fast or non-stop service. No infrastructure changes here either!

Complete timetable rebuilding means these are less of an issue as you look at the whole thing and adjust where conflict happen.

Of course none of this will happen because any delay off the Southern side will be easily recovered with no difficulty at all and the train will magically be on time by the time it passes on to the GN side. Sorry but no way this sort of recovery will happen as a matter of routine, unless regular use is made of non-stopping which I'm sure will be very popular with passengers, and in any case unfeasible in the busy core section except maybe at the extremes of the day.

Who said no difficultly? What your failing to understand is massive change in focus that's under way within the industry. Regulation is currently done on experience, in the future it'll have a computer running those changes to see the affect hours later to help those in operations make the best decisions.

Hmm I'm not convinced faster acceleration will make that much difference. Perhaps a bit, but not much help when running on restrictive signals following another service, or on wet rails, etc.

That's simply not the case in the real world. If a train is following restrictive signals then the stopping pattern makes less difference, especially when the quick to accelerate 700s vs the intercity slower acceleration.

Its this quicker acceleration that allows a 377 on the MML to do all stops from St Albans with a HST a few miles behind without affecting the HST timings. That happens daily now.

In any case, as demonstrated elsewhere, the GN inner and outer services are *not* being separated. As stated elsewhere, whilst the actual timetable may be different, the proposed stopping patterns are almost identical to today. Perhaps full segregation of the Hertford service could prove useful (but no platforms at Hornsey and Harringay on the new tracks so these stations would rely on the WGC service or have to conflict at Alexandra Palace), but there is still going to be a massive mix of stopping patterns more or less everywhere north of Finsbury Park.

Stopping patterns will be more even. The inner and outers are being separated with no inner north of Welwyn GC apart from the 1tph to Stevenage via Hertford that's going to a new platform. With the four tracking, the inners and outers will be operating on physically separate tracks come 2018.

Less trains through the core and more comfortable rolling stock, and the project could represent a massive improvement. Generally most peak services out of King's Cross are *not* exceptionally heavily loaded compared to other routes, some of the fast Cambridge services being the exception. Most off-peak services continue to use 4-car trains. Many off-peak Hertford and WGC services are so lightly used that 3-car trains are deemed sufficient. A lot of issues could be resolved with additional rolling stock, it's a shame the class 365was never built in larger numbers as they are generally a reliable, comfortable and popular train, a few niggles apart.

You haven't been on a 700 so don't judge its comfort levels yet. Less trains through the Core is a silly suggestion as demand is sky rocketing now.

If the GN trains are not that loaded then where is the problem if they go from St Pancras instead?

The inner 3 car services are busy all day long, I know I used to used them a couple of years ago. Come 2018 that demand will only increase, hence the use of fixed formation 6 car services.

Where did this off-peak GN Cambridge stopper come from? It is not mentioned in either GTR's route plans or the ICEC ITT?

Your making the classic mistake of assuming the ITT means its set in stone. Its not. In fact bidders can suggest alternative solutions but must have a good case for doing so.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Off-peak - well after 1900 Moorgate services are going to be run as 6 cars due to "heavy" patronage - and despite economy fears - there is still good growth - especially on the GN - and not just on the inners - hence more and later fast Cambridge services planned of peak and weekends. Who would have imagined a 12 car Sunday am "flyer" around 1000 in the morning in say 1996 ?

 

[greatkingrat]

Your assuming. Come 2018 the two will be separated. The inners will be all stations with the outers being the express until Welwyn GC.

And it is two all stations services, one to Moorgate and another to Thameslink.

Are you saying that Potters Bar/Hatfield will only be served by all station stoppers in 2018? That seems rather unlikely.

 

[Class377/5]

Are you saying that Potters Bar/Hatfield will only be served by all station stoppers in 2018? That seems rather unlikely.

No I'm not saying that at all. North of Welwyn GC most of the express services become all stations, ie Cambridge stopper & Peterborough. Don't confuse express with non stop.

Hatfield and Potters Bar have already been confirmed by GTR as having an all day 2tph Cambridge to Tattenham 8 car service.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Service specs are straightforward - a fast Cambridge is what it says - though it may do 2 calls Hitchin to CGE. (at certain times of day) slow and semi/fast are carefully interworked to give a balanced service to both PBO and CGE - with connectional opportunities at key places. It gets a bit more tricky in the peaks with overlay services and Letchworth starters - some of them being 313's (for now !)