London Bridge reconstruction works

[ijmad]

Hah, I was only joking, but I suppose it's natural that pretty much every idea we can crayonista has already been considered at some point in the last century or so.

 

[ijmad]

What's the conflict at North Kent?

Thameslink trains to Greenwich line have to cross in front of up Cannon Street services on the flat.

 

[takno]

Thameslink trains to and from the Greenwich line have to cross in front of opposite direction Cannon Street services on the flat.

Ahh right, so not conflicts with other Thameslink trains. Does seem like not sending them via Greenwich would make sense, but I'm guessing that will be an "innovation" after 6 months when the whole thing is falling apart every day.

 

[ijmad]

Ahh right, so not conflicts with other Thameslink trains. Does seem like not sending them via Greenwich would make sense, but I'm guessing that will be an "innovation" after 6 months when the whole thing is falling apart every day.

Have edited my post because I think the conflict is nominally only in the down direction actually.

However yes, I don't understand why they're sending a paltry 2tph to Greenwich/Abbey Wood either, 2tph isn't useful to anyone in London where most commuters want turn up and go services (and a train not too far behind the one they can't get on during the crush). Ken Livingstone was correct that 4tph should be the minimum for most rail routes in the capital.

 

[ComUtoR]

Thameslink trains to Greenwich line have to cross in front of up Cannon Street services on the flat.

It crosses in front of ALL Cannon Street services. Anything coming round from/Going to New Cross will also be affected. As well as anything coming from the Greenwich. Its a nice new bottleneck ! Chuck in a potential to stack up if there are any problems into London Bridge as there is barely a decent recovery strategy and almost no 'get out of jail free' card :/

 

[FOH]

I think they didn’t want to go there at all but needed these trains to go through London Bridge but not Windmill Jn and needed an 8 car platform to reverse at. My guess is Crystal Palace would’ve been the choice had it had longer bays.

 

[Fred26]

Why is there a need for north Kent trains to run through the core?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why is there a need for north Kent trains to run through the core?

It isn’t really a London Bridge construction issue, it’s covered at length in one of the many Thameslink timetable threads somewhere, but it’s as FOH just mentioned. Having originally decided to share the 24 tph Thameslink as 8 trains via Elephant and 16 via London Bridge, there was then seen to be a bottleneck further down the ‘Southern’ network at the lower end of the Sydenham corridor, ie Windmill Bridge junctions, where the lines from Victoria merge north of East Croydon.

So in an attempt to reduce that 16 tph they decided to go back to an earlier plan, and run some services onto the Southeastern part of the network. The infrastructure had always allowed for this possibility, it is why the Bermondsey Diveunder has four tracks.

 

[Ianno87]

I think they didn’t want to go there at all but needed these trains to go through London Bridge but not Windmill Jn and needed an 8 car platform to reverse at. My guess is Crystal Palace would’ve been the choice had it had longer bays.

Thameslink<>Crystal Palace would be horribly conflicting; you'd have Thameslink services crossing to Slows at New Cross Gate at the same time at London Bridge services crossing to the Fasts, and other Thameslinks running through on the Fasts and London Bridge services running to the Slows. It would reduce capacity overall.

That, and the Slows are also increasingly full of East London Line trains nowadays.

 

[swt_passenger]

That, and the Slows are also increasingly full of East London Line trains nowadays.

...and the ELL seems to have first dibs on additional paths anyway, with another 4 tph planned by TfL already appearing in route studies etc.

 

[Fred26]

It isn’t really a London Bridge construction issue, it’s covered at length in one of the many Thameslink timetable threads somewhere, but it’s as FOH just mentioned. Having originally decided to share the 24 tph Thameslink as 8 trains via Elephant and 16 via London Bridge, there was then seen to be a bottleneck further down the ‘Southern’ network at the lower end of the Sydenham corridor, ie Windmill Bridge junctions, where the lines from Victoria merge north of East Croydon.

So in an attempt to reduce that 16 tph they decided to go back to an earlier plan, and run some services onto the Southeastern part of the network. The infrastructure had always allowed for this possibility, it is why the Bermondsey Diveunder has four tracks.

Oh I see. Thanks.

 

[swt_passenger]

History... Back in 2011, there was a different balance of services planned, as shown in the London and SE RUS of that time. It had 6 tph via Elephant (of which none were from the Wimbledon loop), and 18 tph via London Bridge, of which 14 tph came up the Southern, and 4 tph off the Southeastern, but all via Tonbridge. So the latter would have come up through New Cross, and presumably not caused the same level of conflicts. But then by the time of the TSGN combined franchise announcement, (around late 2013 for Sep 2014 start), they basically announced that didn't work, and the intended future split at that time became the 8 tph/16 tph that I mentioned earlier, with no Southeastern trains via London Bridge, and Wimbledon loop trains re-introduced at 4 tph.

The key difference recently is putting Thameslink trains onto the Greenwich line. The infrastructure was always built to allow for the possibility of Thameslink <> Southeastern moves through New Cross.

As a bit of an aside, the alternatives report I linked to a few posts back explains that the Bermondsey diveunder actually started out as only a two track structure, and expansion initially to 3 tracks (for up Southeastern to Thameslink moves) and then later to 4 track (to include down Southern services from London Bridge) were decisions taken over 20 years ago. I also hadn’t realised that the very early plans had another flyover in the vicinity of New Cross Gate to get down Southern services over the Thameslink pair. I guess if that had been built it could have caused a major conflict with how the ELL eventually turned out.

 

[Mikey C]

Effectively they've replaced one of the Greenwich line trains to Cannon Street with a service through the Thameslink core instead, which I guess for off peak passengers is more useful (sending all passengers on the Greenwich line to Cannon Street instead of Charing Cross was always for operational reasons, not passenger flows), though it does rather go against the simplification of services which the operators and NR want and passengers don't!

 

[Roast Veg]

Additionally, it allows for the increase in length/frequency of other SE services without having to build new depot space for stock, often cited as the limiting factor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Having a major station like London Bridge, right outside a major terminus is operationally bit of a nightmare. Throw in a complicated, tight throat, and a slow, very tight junction. Then this is the result.

If trains are a couple of minutes late, then they start to loose their slots over the junction. Towards the evening peak a lot of empties are pumped up towards Cannon St. Even in the timetable, trains are essentially booked to wait. once that que starts building, it soon builds up quickly.

This and the other explanations seems to me to suggest that the problem can be summarised as: More trains are being sent to Cannon Street than the track layout and infrastructure can reliably cope with - and it does seem like an oversight that a huge rebuild of London Bridge would have been made - specifically designed to allow a new timetable in which some trains through London Bridge will now go to different destinations - without including some resolution to that problem in the new infrastructure and new train patterns.

I wonder whether any thought was given to redesigning the timetable so slightly fewer trains an hour go to Cannon Street? Obviously, that would require somewhere else to receive more trains. Since Charing Cross is probably full, that would presumably mean either more trains terminating at London Bridge (building an extra terminating platform?) or more Thameslink trains? (Terminate more of the Thameslink trains from Elephant and Castle at Blackfriars, thereby allowing capacity for more trains from London Bridge to head through the core?)

By the way I typically travel several times a week through London Bridge - generally at different times through the day, so I tend to experience a somewhat random sampling of trains. My own experience is also that going to Charing Cross is now pretty reliable through London Bridge - seems to be fairly common even for CHX trains to leave LBG a minute or two early(!) - but that it's very common for CST trains to get backed up outside LBG and end up late. It's noticeable enough that I've now even started occasionally adjusting my travel patterns - to strongly prioritise getting CHX trains if I reasonably can.

 

[FOH]

I noticed today on the Lower Level platforms concourse departure screens, despite the signage above stating “Platform 10 to 15 Departures” they’re also displaying departures from Platforms 4 & 5

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder whether any thought was given to redesigning the timetable so slightly fewer trains an hour go to Cannon Street? Obviously, that would require somewhere else to receive more trains. Since Charing Cross is probably full, that would presumably mean either more trains terminating at London Bridge (building an extra terminating platform?) or more Thameslink trains?

Yes, it was thought about. They went into detail in the London and SE RUS (2011) about the intended reduction in the number of services to Cannon St following the Thameslink changes.

At that time the intention was that Cannon St terminating trains would reduce from 25 to 22 per hour. The grand total number of services on the approaches to London Bridge was to increase from 84 to 88 tph. Charing Cross basically stayed the same at 29/28 tph.

 

[ijmad]

At that time the intention was that Cannon St terminating trains would reduce from 25 to 22 per hour. The grand total number of services on the approaches to London Bridge was to increase from 84 to 88 tph. Charing Cross basically stayed the same at 29/28 tph.

Interesting the May timetable is still squeezing 25 up between 0800 and 0900.

 

[MML]

I know there are now only 2 terminating platforms at London Blackfriars today, rather than the 3 which existed before the remodelling of the station. However, they do not appear to be well utilised.
Platform 3 and 4 at London Blackfriars now appear to service 8-car units to Rochester and Ashford. Yet following the 1729 departure from Platform 3, there is an hour and a half gap to the next scheduled departure.
Given capacity at Cannon St and Charing Cross is so limited, could not more services use the bay platforms at London Blackfriars ?
Even a half hour interval should permit an extra 4 departures between 1730 and 1900.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know there are now only 2 terminating platforms at London Blackfriars today, rather than the 3 which existed before the remodelling of the station. However, they do not appear to be well utilised.
Platform 3 and 4 at London Blackfriars now appear to service 8-car units to Rochester and Ashford. Yet following the 1729 departure from Platform 3, there is an hour and a half gap to the next scheduled departure.
Given capacity at Cannon St and Charing Cross is so limited, could not more services use the bay platforms at London Blackfriars ?
Even a half hour interval should permit an extra 4 departures between 1730 and 1900.

It goes to 5 departures per hour in the evening peak from May.

 

[387star]

Still a lot of work to be completed

 

[hwl]

I know there are now only 2 terminating platforms at London Blackfriars today, rather than the 3 which existed before the remodelling of the station. However, they do not appear to be well utilised.
Platform 3 and 4 at London Blackfriars now appear to service 8-car units to Rochester and Ashford. Yet following the 1729 departure from Platform 3, there is an hour and a half gap to the next scheduled departure.
Given capacity at Cannon St and Charing Cross is so limited, could not more services use the bay platforms at London Blackfriars ?
Even a half hour interval should permit an extra 4 departures between 1730 and 1900.

Wait till after the December TT change and you'll find they are running at 8tph into the terminating platforms...
Lots of the Thameslink / railplan 2020 related changes are taking place over quite along time (till Dec '19 though mostly in place post Dec '18 TT change) and SN /SE don't have the stock until lots more 700s are in service.

 

[ijmad]

Wait till after the December TT change and you'll find they are running at 8tph into the terminating platforms...
Lots of the Thameslink / railplan 2020 related changes are taking place over quite along time (till Dec '19 though mostly in place post Dec '18 TT change) and SN /SE don't have the stock until lots more 700s are in service.

Is there any info you can link to detailing what these additional services will be?

 

[Verulamius]

The 2017 consultations had 2tph terminating at Blackfriars from the Wimbledon loop. These do not appear to be in the proposed May 2018 timetable probably because the Sevenoaks are terminating instead until being joined up in the Welwyn Garden City trains in May 2019.

There are the 2tph Beckenham Junction trains and 1tph fast to Maidstone/Rochester all SE. This makes the 5tph above.

I do not know long term what the plan is for the 1tph fasts when the Thameslink Maidstones start in December 2019. This is for the new SE franchise?

I can not get to 8tph though, I have probably missed some additional services?

 

[swt_passenger]

Having helped to kick start discussion of timetables again myself, with the stuff about London and SE RUS etc, can I suggest to everyone that we ease off about future timetables into Blackfriars, as this thread is supposed to be about London Bridge construction?

We could end up completely sidetracked...

 

[ijmad]

Having helped to kick start discussion of timetables again myself, with the stuff about London and SE RUS etc, can I suggest to everyone that we ease off about future timetables into Blackfriars, as this thread is supposed to be about London Bridge construction?

We could end up completely sidetracked...

Fair point. I shall ask my question in the Timetabling thread(s).

 

[mr_jrt]

I'll just leave this here:

 

[mr_jrt]

...and:

 

[FOH]

Escalator broken on P11/12. Looked like the glass side panels had somehow shattered. Movement in the foundations? What with no lift either there were plenty huffing and puffing up.

 

[theageofthetra]

Thameslink trains to Greenwich line have to cross in front of up Cannon Street services on the flat.

NKE should have been rebuilt when it was surrounded by semi derelict industrial areas, now full of new build housing. Huge opportunity lost.