Potential for extra Thameslink paths?

[cle]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ded-thameslink-and-not-great-northern.208573/

Where else could the 'Maidstones' go on the southern side if the northern half was activated into the core some time soon?

Could there be paths for another Sevenoaks/Orpington frequency? Or even a Bellingham turn? There aren't many inner turning points for the Southern/SE network, other than the local Southern ones - all wrong line pairs.

Via East Croydon doesn't sound likely either, unless it took something over from a Victoria service. But those paths would need to do something else.

Maybe it could take over the LB - West Croydon - Epsom semi-fast service?

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasnt there an extra dedicated turnback siding provided for Thameslink services somewhere, is it next to Herne Hill station? Could that deal with a couple of tph? I believe it can’t be in passenger service so trains would have to be emptied at Elephant and Castle.

It may be a facility that’s unusable at a full frequency timetable though. There may be somewhere else with a more usable centre turnback.

 

[London Trains]

Where else could the 'Maidstones' go on the southern side if the northern half was activated into the core some time soon?

Could there be paths for another Sevenoaks/Orpington frequency? Or even a Bellingham turn? There aren't many inner turning points for the Southern/SE network, other than the local Southern ones - all wrong line pairs.

Via East Croydon doesn't sound likely either, unless it took something over from a Victoria service. But those paths would need to do something else.

Maybe it could take over the LB - West Croydon - Epsom semi-fast service?

After the East Croydon, Windmill Bridge Junction and Norwood Junction upgrades, it should be possible to run an extra 2tph through East Croydon.

 

[Gerard92]

Wasnt there an extra dedicated turnback siding provided for Thameslink services somewhere, is it next to Herne Hill station? Could that deal with a couple of tph? I believe it can’t be in passenger service so trains would have to be emptied at Elephant and Castle.

It may be a facility that’s unusable at a full frequency timetable though. There may be somewhere else with a more usable centre turnback.

Elephant & Castle is usually used to terminate any late running Sutton & Orpington services (which come from Luton at peak hours) then ECS to Herne Hill turnback as Elephant is the only other station south of Blackfriars towards Herne Hill which has platform staff also sometimes any services from Bedford sometimes divert and terminate at Elephant to avoid blocking the core temporary at Blackfriars while terminating. Platform 4 at Herne Hill is also used to terminate services and return North. TL do need more turnback options south of the core as any ECS services which run to Herne Hill turnback will wait there until it’s return working from either Loughborough Junction/Elephant depending on which service group it is. Elephant would be a good option to have full bi-di working on platform 2 to have more flexibility as platform 2 is already rarely used to terminate trains from the South

 

[swt_passenger]

Elephant & Castle is usually used to terminate any late running Sutton & Orpington services (which come from Luton at peak hours) then ECS to Herne Hill turnback as Elephant is the only other station south of Blackfriars towards Herne Hill which has platform staff also sometimes any services from Bedford sometimes divert and terminate at Elephant to avoid blocking the core temporary at Blackfriars while terminating. Platform 4 at Herne Hill is also used to terminate services and return North. TL do need more turnback options south of the core as any ECS services which run to Herne Hill turnback will wait there until it’s return working from either Loughborough Junction/Elephant depending on which service group it is. Elephant would be a good option to have full bi-di working on platform 2 to have more flexibility as platform 2 is already rarely used to terminate trains from the South

Thanks for adding some flesh to the bones I came up with...

 

[jopsuk]

nevermind finding additional paths, what you're really after for the Cambridge is a half hourly service arriving at London Bridge at approx xx13/xx43 for which 8 car trains are suitable. Preferably not one from Southern or Southeastern's "metro" groups, but ideally one with a similar stopping pattern to the section on the GN network (so one or two stops to the edge of the "metro" areas, then all-stops).

 

[43074]

Where else could the 'Maidstones' go on the southern side if the northern half was activated into the core some time soon?

Could there be paths for another Sevenoaks/Orpington frequency? Or even a Bellingham turn? There aren't many inner turning points for the Southern/SE network, other than the local Southern ones - all wrong line pairs.

Via East Croydon doesn't sound likely either, unless it took something over from a Victoria service. But those paths would need to do something else.

Maybe it could take over the LB - West Croydon - Epsom semi-fast service?

That is of course assuming the paths on the South side are ever implemented. Not looking promising in the current climate it has be said.

 

[Ianno87]

nevermind finding additional paths, what you're really after for the Cambridge is a half hourly service arriving at London Bridge at approx xx13/xx43 for which 8 car trains are suitable. Preferably not one from Southern or Southeastern's "metro" groups, but ideally one with a similar stopping pattern to the section on the GN network (so one or two stops to the edge of the "metro" areas, then all-stops).

If you get a path to join up one way, £5 says it doesn't join up the other...

Anyway, the non-TL service groups on the Fasts through Sydenham are all 12-car, and the Kent metro routes out of London Bridge are all 10/12 car.

 

[43074]

After the East Croydon, Windmill Bridge Junction and Norwood Junction upgrades, it should be possible to run an extra 2tph through East Croydon.

Where do the paths come from for that on the 4 track railway south of Croydon? Remodelling Windmill and Norwood is fine but it doesn't solve the congestion on all of the corridors feeding it from further out.

 

[Ianno87]

Where do the paths come from for that on the 4 track railway south of Croydon? Remodelling Windmill and Norwood is fine but it doesn't solve the congestion on all of the corridors feeding it from further out.

Network Rail seem to disagree with you on that one - that's the whole point of doing Croydon.

 

[43074]

Network Rail seem to disagree with you on that one - that's the whole point of doing Croydon.

There aren't that many conflicts in the current Windmill Bridge layout, the key benefit from CARS is performance improvement.

Trains through the Windmill Bridge complex have to go somewhere; in the peaks, the TL Core, Victoria and London Bridge terminal platforms are full, to the south the Quarry lines are full, the quantum of trains towards Oxted and beyond West Croydon is limited by the headways, so there are lots of other pieces of the jigsaw to solve before running more trains than now is even a consideration.

 

[Ianno87]

There aren't that many conflicts in the current Windmill Bridge layout,

If you ignore:

-Down Vic Fast / Up LB Fast
-Down LB Slow / Up Vic Slow
-Down Vic Fast / Up Vic Slow to Up Vic Fast
-Up Vic Slow / Down Vic Fast to Slow
-Down Vic-West Croydon / Up Vic Slow
-A multitude of limited standage areas
-The T106 overlap in Platform 5 at Croydon
-Etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==

There aren't that many conflicts in the current Windmill Bridge layout, the key benefit from CARS is performance improvement.

Trains through the Windmill Bridge complex have to go somewhere; in the peaks, the TL Core, Victoria and London Bridge terminal platforms are full, to the south the Quarry lines are full, the quantum of trains towards Oxted and beyond West Croydon is limited by the headways, so there are lots of other pieces of the jigsaw to solve before running more trains than now is even a consideration.

Quarry Lines have a 2 minute headway, but certainly not 30tph at the moment. Plus schemes like the Reigate turnback will free up some Slow Line capacity to Gatwick.

Croydon helps you make better use of the capacity further south, so you can better write the timetable around constraints elsewhere.

 

[43074]

[

If you ignore:

-Down Vic Fast / Up LB Fast
-Down LB Slow / Up Vic Slow
-Down Vic Fast / Up Vic Slow to Up Vic Fast
-Up Vic Slow / Down Vic Fast to Slow
-Down Vic-West Croydon / Up Vic Slow
-A multitude of limited standage areas
-The T106 overlap in Platform 5 at Croydon
-Etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2020 ==



Quarry Lines have a 2 minute headway, but certainly not 30tph at the moment. Plus schemes like the Reigate turnback will free up some Slow Line capacity to Gatwick.

Croydon helps you make better use of the capacity further south, so you can better write the timetable around constraints elsewhere.

So, even if you produced the perfect plan for the constraints further south, where do any extra you end up running go at the London end? And that whilst producing robust turnarounds for Southern coastal services at the termini after running from 50 - 80 miles away.

The key conflicts at Windmill are LB/Vic fast lines, Up Vic slow to Up LB slow and the Selhurst Junction/Gloucester Road complex. But most of those are mitigated by the timetable structure and service patterns anyway (e.g. The path taken by Vic to Grinsteads after they cross to the slows at Selhurst is taken by a TL), they really aren't as big a problem as is made out.

 

[Ianno87]

So, even if you produced the perfect plan for the constraints further south, where do any extra you end up running go at the London end? And that whilst producing robust turnarounds for Southern coastal services at the termini after running from 50 - 80 miles away.

London Bridge terminal platforms are actually used less now than pre-May 2018. A couple of extra trains per hour ought to be feasible without creating any performance issues.

More paths beyond this would of course require more stuff to be done, or jiggery pokery of what goes into what terminal.

The key conflicts at Windmill are LB/Vic fast lines, Up Vic slow to Up LB slow and the Selhurst Junction/Gloucester Road complex. But most of those are mitigated by the timetable structure and service patterns anyway (e.g. The path taken by Vic to Grinsteads after they cross to the slows at Selhurst is taken by a TL), they really aren't as big a problem as is made out.

The current junctions and East Croydon station basically balance each other.

The effective headway between trains on the Fasts through Croydon is 3-3.5 minutes, as trains generally are restricted to one platform per direction (although Platform 2 is tidal flow, it can of course be used only one direction at a time).

Upping the Fasts from 3 platforms to 4 platforms at East Croydon gives 2 platforms per direction - so the effective Fast headway reduces to 2-2.5 minutes - but this then shoves the problem to Windmill Bridge with trains out of sync there unless you fix that too.

 

[ashkeba]

There is indeed no plan to send the GN Fasts through Thameslink. King's Lynn services through the core may have been a proposal in the dim and distant past (e.g. NSE era), but not for many. many years.

It was proposed definitely in 1999 and maybe until the late 2000s according to https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-2000-programme-what-could-have-been.174394/

 

[cle]

The 8 car equivalency to Welwyn is tough. Even Reigate's turnback will be 12. I guess that is why Maidstone was a choice initially. Sutton and Catford Loops also options.

On Croydon and the consolidation/re-vamp of services beyond, another thing (I mentioned only today on another thread) is Gatwick Express. It is duplicative and shouldn't exist - all 4tph should be added to the Southern pool, paths spaced accordingly all with stops at Clapham Junction and East Croydon - and head onwards. That alone would help, and maybe another service here or there, or different stopping patterns could be added where there is some overlap. Especially when looking at TL too.

A return of fast services via Redhill even, perhaps. It's had a rough deal with the subpar re-platforming, shuttle demotion for Tonbridge, and mainly the loss of fasts.

 

[London Trains]

On Croydon and the consolidation/re-vamp of services beyond, another thing is Gatwick Express. It is duplicative and shouldn't exist - all 4tph should be added to the Southern pool, paths spaced accordingly all with stops at Clapham Junction and East Croydon - and head onwards. That alone would help, and maybe another service here or there, or different stopping patterns could be added where there is some overlap. Especially when looking at TL too.

A return of fast services via Redhill even, perhaps. It's had a rough deal with the subpar re-platforming, shuttle demotion for Tonbridge, and mainly the loss of fasts.

Yes, I agree so much with this. Gatwick Express is a waste of paths and is just set up to scam people who arent familiar with the railways and believe it is a premium product. It's not like it will cause Gatwick to lose any services - they will all still call at Gatwick anyway.

I would use the 2tph which terminate at Gatwick to end any splitting of Littlehampton and Eastbourne services and provide 4tph to Brighton at equal intervals. I would have:

4tph Brighton (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath, Wivelsfield 2tph, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park 2tph) - alternating between Wivelsfield and Preston Park.

2tph Littlehampton (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath, Hove...)

2tph Eastbourne/Ore (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath...)

 

[Class465pacer]

If/When Thameslink comes to Maidstone would it be an extension of a current route or an entirely new one? If its the latter where will they get the rolling stock from?

 

[Ianno87]

If/When Thameslink comes to Maidstone would it be an extension of a current route or an entirely new one? If its the latter where will they get the rolling stock from?

Extension of the current Cambridge-King's Cross service. South of the river, it is a completely new service group.

In theory, the Class 700 fleet is adequate to stretch to cover it (can't remember if some are still sat at Dollands Moor at the moment)

 

[SE%Traveller]

Depending on demand post COVID you could run the Cambridge Service to Sevenoaks all day, the latter service also has to be 8 car.

Then as and when demand picks up run Welwyn to Beckenham Junction in the peaks (replacing existing SE peak service to Blackfriars)

 

[Ianno87]

Depending on demand post COVID you could run the Cambridge Service to Sevenoaks all day, the latter service also has to be 8 car.

Then as and when demand picks up run Welwyn to Beckenham Junction in the peaks (replacing existing SE peak service to Blackfriars)

Paths don't join up.

Welwyn is designed to join to Sevenoaks.

 

[Peter stanley]

Elephant & Castle is usually used to terminate any late running Sutton & Orpington services (which come from Luton at peak hours) then ECS to Herne Hill turnback as Elephant is the only other station south of Blackfriars towards Herne Hill which has platform staff also sometimes any services from Bedford sometimes divert and terminate at Elephant to avoid blocking the core temporary at Blackfriars while terminating. Platform 4 at Herne Hill is also used to terminate services and return North. TL do need more turnback options south of the core as any ECS services which run to Herne Hill turnback will wait there until it’s return working from either Loughborough Junction/Elephant depending on which service group it is. Elephant would be a good option to have full bi-di working on platform 2 to have more flexibility as platform 2 is already rarely used to terminate trains from the South

For Thameslink turnback option in the south, would Streatham Hill work?. From Herne Hill via Tulse Hill would take about six mins in each direction plus another say 10 minutes for turning. Streatham Hill only has 4tph each direction so congestion here should not be a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2020 ==

Yes, I agree so much with this. Gatwick Express is a waste of paths and is just set up to scam people who arent familiar with the railways and believe it is a premium product. It's not like it will cause Gatwick to lose any services - they will all still call at Gatwick anyway.

I would use the 2tph which terminate at Gatwick to end any splitting of Littlehampton and Eastbourne services and provide 4tph to Brighton at equal intervals. I would have:

4tph Brighton (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath, Wivelsfield 2tph, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Preston Park 2tph) - alternating between Wivelsfield and Preston Park.

2tph Littlehampton (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath, Hove...)

2tph Eastbourne/Ore (Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath...)

I agree Gatwick Express should go. Also I suggest Thameslink (TL) services to both Littlehampton and Eastbourne all day. I suggest:
Littlehampton 2 tph, one Victoria one TL
Eastbourne similar with the Victoria going on to Ore,
Brighton 8tph- 2TL, 4 Victoria fast, 2 London Bridge semi fast via Redhill.

 

[Class465pacer]

Extension of the current Cambridge-King's Cross service. South of the river, it is a completely new service group.

In theory, the Class 700 fleet is adequate to stretch to cover it (can't remember if some are still sat at Dollands Moor at the moment)

Interesting, thanks. The core will have a service similar to Underground lines by then.

 

[30907]

For Thameslink turnback option in the south, would Streatham Hill work?. From Herne Hill via Tulse Hill would take about six mins in each direction plus another say 10 minutes for turning. Streatham Hill only has 4tph each direction so congestion here should not be a problem.

Streatham Hill is fine, the problem is getting extra trains through Herne Hill.
If this is a genuine problem, then the turnback on the Up Main at Kent House could be used, as this would reduce the conflicting movements at HNH by half. I am not sure the signalling would allow 12 cars though without alteration.