Sheffield To Brighton Direct

[Magdalia]

Also consider the track layout - it's paired by use from Balcombe Tunnel Jn, with the Crawley line joining on the slow line.

I had an afterthought on that, and changed Southern Coastway to Arun Valley as a result! I agree that going via Redhill and Balcombe doesn't work.

Even though they emerge at Three Bridges on the "Redhill" side of the formation, sooner or later they have to cross to the Victoria route, whether at Stoats Nest or Selhurst if they go via Redhill.

You are right, but, on the other hand, the Arun Valley trains would no longer be doing this at Gatwick.

Those services are often full and standing by Gatwick even outside peak times, they need to run via the Quarry lines.

I think the suggestion was that the Portsmouth / Bognor services off the Arun Valley go via Redhill, but that is not a good idea, for the overcrowding reasons you set out above.

The solution to overcrowding is longer trains, irrespective of the route they take.

The thing with Peterborough is this - the slow line stations between Stevenage and Peterborough are one station bank (economically and operationally). If Arlesey is a suitable Thameslink location then those Thameslink services have to run to/from Peterborough.

You are right that the slow line stations between Hitchin and Peterborough are one station bank, and it is very difficult to change that, especially since the 2025 ECML timetable.

But Arlesey is the tail, not the dog. What matters is what's suitable for Peterborough, Huntingdon and St Neots. And, if Peterborough isn't a suitable Thameslink location, then that means that the whole station group isn't suitable for Thameslink, even if Arlesey is suitable.

And all MML Slows to Elephant. Rainham needs to go - it was a last minute reactive change as Windmill Bridge needed to spit out 2tph.

We are agreed on that. Rainham was only put into Thameslink in the quest for the 24tph holy grail.

 

[NCT]

But Arlesey is the tail, not the dog. What matters is what's suitable for Peterborough, Huntingdon and St Neots. And, if Peterborough isn't a suitable Thameslink location, then that means that the whole station group isn't suitable for Thameslink, even if Arlesey is suitable.

Disagree.

Thameslink isn't intended to carry Peterborough - London traffic. Peterborough itself doesn't carry a strong weighting. The service logic is pretty much this

- Stevenage and Hitchin justify a fast service to London. You can't terminate at those locations and those services have spare capacity
- You extend 2tph towards Royston and 2tph to Arlesey - Biggleswade - Sandy - St Neots - Huntingdon
- This is the only realistic service to provide the 'other direction' to Peterborough and Peterborough is the only available terminus location

At the London end there are 3 options

- Terminate at King's Cross
- Terminate at Moorgate
- Go through the Thameslink core

Given all the other services on the ECML, Thameslink is the only realistic choice.

 

[zwk500]

The solution to overcrowding is longer trains, irrespective of the route they take.

Coastway services are already often 8 or 12 car. Of course part of the reason these services fill up at Gatwick is that they're only stopping East Croydon, Clapham Junction, and London Victoria so if that changed to be all-stops then a lot of the traffic would redistribute to the faster trains.

However journey times from the Sussex coast to London are already in excess of an hour and this is busy commuter territory so extending the journey time would be a significant detriment to the passengers as well as requiring more crew and units.

 

[William3000]

I had an afterthought on that, and changed Southern Coastway to Arun Valley as a result! I agree that going via Redhill and Balcombe doesn't work.


You are right, but, on the other hand, the Arun Valley trains would no longer be doing this at Gatwick.




The solution to overcrowding is longer trains, irrespective of the route they take.



You are right that the slow line stations between Hitchin and Peterborough are one station bank, and it is very difficult to change that, especially since the 2025 ECML timetable.

But Arlesey is the tail, not the dog. What matters is what's suitable for Peterborough, Huntingdon and St Neots. And, if Peterborough isn't a suitable Thameslink location, then that means that the whole station group isn't suitable for Thameslink, even if Arlesey is suitable.


We are agreed on that. Rainham was only put into Thameslink in the quest for the 24tph holy grail.

Given the plans for a very large new town at Tempsford maybe that is a future destination for Thameslink. Then a new half hourly London King’s Cross, Stevenage, Tempsford, St Neots, Huntingdon, Alconbury Weald, Hampton, Peterborough service could run in addition, with Biggleswade, Sandy, and Arlesey served by Thameslink.

 

[Magdalia]

Thameslink isn't intended to carry Peterborough - London traffic. Peterborough itself doesn't carry a strong weighting.

But Huntingdon and St Neots have the biggest weightings and I remind you of these numbers that I quoted earlier.

The data from Huntingdon and St Neots suggests that this is prioritising the few to the disadvantage of the many. Most Huntingdon and St Neots passengers do not use Thameslink to go beyond St Pancras.

In both cases the biggest London flows are still to Kings Cross and St Pancras, not into the core (110730 and 158649 for Huntingdon, 84649 and 81479 for St Neots).

And the next biggest are local: for Huntingdon. Peterborough (128589) is bigger than all of Farringdon-London Bridge (108742), and for St Neots, Huntingdon+Peterborough (108215) is bigger than all of Farringdon-London Bridge (96041).

The local traffic is especially disadvantaged by Thameslink disruption, often caused by events far away.

Thameslink is very important for Huntingdon/St Neots-London traffic, especially off peak when it provides the only service.

And Peterborough is important in the context of the local traffic, especially from Huntingdon.

The service logic is pretty much this

- Stevenage and Hitchin justify a fast service to London. You can't terminate at those locations and those services have spare capacity
- You extend 2tph towards Royston and 2tph to Arlesey - Biggleswade - Sandy - St Neots - Huntingdon
- This is the only realistic service to provide the 'other direction' to Peterborough and Peterborough is the only available terminus location

At the London end there are 3 options

- Terminate at King's Cross
- Terminate at Moorgate
- Go through the Thameslink core

Given all the other services on the ECML, Thameslink is the only realistic choice.

I mostly agree with the analysis here but not the conclusion. There are other options, though they do have disadvantages, and this discussion isn't the place to go into them, especially as I suspect that continuing Thameslink to Peterborough is probably the least worst option.

Given the plans for a very large new town at Tempsford maybe that is a future destination for Thameslink.

The Tempsford station in the current EWR plans only has slow line platforms on the ECML and no change to the track layout. A turnback facility would require grade separation.

Then a new half hourly London King’s Cross, Stevenage, Tempsford, St Neots, Huntingdon, Alconbury Weald, Hampton, Peterborough service could run in addition, with Biggleswade, Sandy, and Arlesey served by Thameslink.

Terminating Thameslink at Tempsford leaves unanswered what service would be provided at St Neots and Huntingdon, given that there is no capacity for the proposed Kings Cross-Peterborough service either at Kings Cross or through the 2 track section at Welwyn.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s interesting how many people travel from Cambridge to Gatwick given that of the 6 busiest airports in the UK, 4 are closer to Cambridge than Gatwick. Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, and Birmingham are all closer.

If you don’t want to fly Ryanair, then Stansted is essentially off limits. I know several Cambridge residents who, like me, refuse to fly with them.