Sutton Loop Services through to St Albans.

[mwmbwls]

There is an hourly service from Luton and St Albans through to the Sutton Loop. In 2009 however there was a proposal to terminate all Sutton Loop services in the new west side bays at Blackfriars. Can anybody remember when and why the proposal to terminate Sutton Loop trains at Blackfriars which had been a long standing part of the DFT/Mayoral policy under Boris Johnson was not put into effect?

 

[glbotu]

There is an hourly service from Luton and St Albans through to the Sutton Loop. In 2009 however there was a proposal to terminate all Sutton Loop services in the new west side bays at Blackfriars. Can anybody remember when and why the proposal to terminate Sutton Loop trains at Blackfriars which had been a long standing part of the DFT/Mayoral policy under Boris Johnson was not put into effect?

People from Wimbledon complained. Basically, the MP for Merton pretty much said that it was making the service worse (despite the fact that the frequency would have doubled), because passengers from the Sutton Loop would have fewer direct trains to places they wanted to go.

 

[MrCub]

I'm pleased it didn't happen (although I can see the quite clear reasons for it). It gives Luton direct services to Elstree but also an additional relief (and often very quiet) train to St Albans every half hour

 

[30907]

I'm pleased it didn't happen (although I can see the quite clear reasons for it). It gives Luton direct services to Elstree but also an additional relief (and often very quiet) train to St Albans every half hour

But the proposal wasnt to reduce services N of Blackfriars AFAIK, it was to reroute them south of the river (to Sevenoaks?)

 

[sammyg901]

Didn't they do a study and realise that those trains had the highest number of passengers continuing past Blackfriars?

 

[Class377/5]

But the proposal wasn't to reduce services N of Blackfriars AFAIK, it was to reroute them south of the river (to Sevenoaks?)

No, NR suggestion was to swap the old Blackfriars to Sevenoaks and Sutton to St Albans/Luton services around so Sutton services terminated in the bays and services via Peckham Rye continued northwards.

At no point was any idea of reducing services north of London on the MML.

Didn't they do a study and realise that those trains had the highest number of passengers continuing past Blackfriars?

Yes. Large numbers to the Core north of Blackfriars and some through the Core peak passengers too.

There is an hourly service from Luton and St Albans through to the Sutton Loop. In 2009 however there was a proposal to terminate all Sutton Loop services in the new west side bays at Blackfriars. Can anybody remember when and why the proposal to terminate Sutton Loop trains at Blackfriars which had been a long standing part of the DFT/Mayoral policy under Boris Johnson was not put into effect?

It was a NR suggestion from the RUS, nothing else. Its got nothing to do with Boris and the DfT sided with passenger groups that campaigned and got MP (or MPs) support.

 

[Muzer]

Since nobody has mentioned this so far, the reason this was going to happen originally is that not doing so would cause a huge point of contention where trains are required to cross the paths of other Thameslink trains going in the opposite direction. This is avoided elsewhere on the network, and so this would likely become a capacity constraint and a bottleneck (at least for the route via Elephant & Castle).

Mitigations for this include the fact that there are two places where the crossing over can occur (just North of Elephant & Castle at Southwark Bridge Jn, and at Loughborough Jn), and that the majority of trains would already have diverged for London Bridge by this point. But I still worry for the reliability of the line, with this being a major factor in the equation (though sadly just one of many potential issues!).

 

[Class377/5]

Since nobody has mentioned this so far, the reason this was going to happen originally is that not doing so would cause a huge point of contention where trains are required to cross the paths of other Thameslink trains going in the opposite direction. This is avoided elsewhere on the network, and so this would likely become a capacity constraint and a bottleneck (at least for the route via Elephant & Castle).

Mitigations for this include the fact that there are two places where the crossing over can occur (just North of Elephant & Castle at Southwark Bridge Jn, and at Loughborough Jn), and that the majority of trains would already have diverged for London Bridge by this point. But I still worry for the reliability of the line, with this being a major factor in the equation (though sadly just one of many potential issues!).

But as I pointed out on other threads, the currently 15tph peak Thameslink service and the 4tph Southeastern for a total 19tph would become 14tph (8tph Thameslink, 2tph Southern and 4tph Southeastern).

So can someone explain how 19tph is working ok but 14tph won't? And yes this area has been working quite well baring ill passengers. It's another excuse in my mind to trying and make it easy to enforce something which doesn't stand up when looked at. Especially when we are talking about a four track section of traction. Still find it hard to understand anyone who claims 14tph can't be spilt on a four track section.

 

[W230]

As said really, despite the doubling of frequencies, 'loopers' didn't want to have to change trains at Blackfriars and continue their journey a couple of minutes later on another train. MP's got involved and the rest is history...

As I understand it, this was the reason behind the 'swapping' of the bay platforms during the rebuild. The old through lines were where the bay platforms now are and vice versa. Would have been ideal to terminate the Sutton services in the bay as no conflict with the Holborn lines. I imagine extremely annoying for NR too after their planning!

 

[Class377/5]

As said really, despite the doubling of frequencies, 'loopers' didn't want to have to change trains at Blackfriars and continue their journey a couple of minutes later on another train. MP's got involved and the rest is history...

As I understand it, this was the reason behind the 'swapping' of the bay platforms during the rebuild. The old through lines were where the bay platforms now are and vice versa. Would have been ideal to terminate the Sutton services in the bay as no conflict with the Holborn lines. I imagine extremely annoying for NR too after their planning!

Reason behind the swapping was the original 18tph from London bridge and the 6tph Thameslink and 6tph Southeastern services would all cross. Swapping around mean less conflict. Note the London bridge and Elephant & Castle lines couldn't be grade separated with destroying the skyline (something that partially killed off Thameslink 2000) and having double layer of railway outside a residential estate.

Worth noting that NR still hadn't got a working timetable for Thameslink when GTR won the franchise. They'd manged to fudge it but balanced service didn't exist well with 8 and 12 car paths mixing.

 

[W230]

Reason behind the swapping was the original 18tph from London bridge and the 6tph Thameslink and 6tph Southeastern services would all cross. Swapping around mean less conflict. Note the London bridge and Elephant & Castle lines couldn't be grade separated with destroying the skyline (something that partially killed off Thameslink 2000) and having double layer of railway outside a residential estate.

Worth noting that NR still hadn't got a working timetable for Thameslink when GTR won the franchise. They'd manged to fudge it but balanced service didn't exist well with 8 and 12 car paths mixing.

Makes sense. Has this change caused NR untold grief then or was the timetable in such early stages that its not been that much of an issue. Just a lower service schedule?

I'm still surprised loopers didn't want to double the frequency. At least they wouldn't have huge service gaps when we stick in the odd cancellation.

 

[Class377/5]

Makes sense. Has this change caused NR untold grief then or was the timetable in such early stages that its not been that much of an issue. Just a lower service schedule?

I'm still surprised loopers didn't want to double the frequency. At least they wouldn't have huge service gaps when we stick in the odd cancellation.

As I understand it, it hasn't caused too much issue. Bidders for the TSGN (GTR) had to give timetables, stock diagram drafts as part for the bid so there was a framework to go off. I believe bidders were also given the NR report and timetable.

I personally saw a draft 2018 timetable back in 2013/14 (can't remember when but was under FCC) so they did exist.