Thameslink 2023 timetable

[Hadders]

Could Thameslink eventually become a single, high-intensity metro route? Would probably be quite popular if transferred to London Overground and Camberwell/Walworth stations reopened.

Obviously Bedford-Brighton would stay.

What about Peterborough to Horsham and Cambridge to Brighton? Would they become part of your metro plan?

 

[LBMPSB]

And re-allocate other things from Cannon St if needed to Charing Cross (Orpington?) - push the single terminal, higher frequency approach on these routes. And LB for easy swaps, it's what it was rebuilt for!

London Bridge was built to separate the Thameslink trains from South Eastern, to avoid the major conflict at the old Tattenham crossovers between the Eastern and Central lines. Hence the bulding of the dive under at Bermondsey to avoid flat junction conlicts and providing the ludicrous "line of route" platforming at London Bridge. Thameslinks now go through London Bridge without once conflicting with South Eastern Trains. However, the Government insisted against railway professionals that a Thameslink route must run utilising the Greenwich lines as a peace offering to the populous in the GReenwich area who lost their Charing Cross direct service. A hugely unpopular move with the railway professionals because they had just shelved out ex amount of billions to avoid the conflict of Thameslink trains with South Eastern trains. Now the Government insisted on moving that conflict to North Kent East Junction where South Eastern Cannon Street services & Thameslink services conflict once thing become just a couple of minutes late. No chance the Luton - Rainhams will ever disappear.

As for Cambridge - Maidstones.......Kent County Council are getting extremely frustrated by the delay in this service appearing as it was promised them with deadline dates at least twice now. There is no reason other than lack of stock, pathway sexist. Originally is was planned that no Sutton/Wimbledon services would run through the core and would terminate in the bay, however, Government intervention yet again to appease voters it was insisted they go through the core, hence the shortage of 700 units. Incidentally, all 700s were envisaged to be 12 car only. Indeed the 700/0 units had their coaches numbered such that additional carriages can be bought to make them up to 12 cars (highly unlikely now). 700/0s only came about because of the insistance of a Sutton/Wimbledon service, many of the stations on this route are not able to be expanded without substantial work so only take 8 cars. The Luton - Rainham were to be 12 cars with most if not all stations on the route being able to take 12 cars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Not possible via London Bridge as the Blackfriars bays don't have a suitable route. Going via Nunhead might be a little slow and doesn't serve Greenwich.

However, there is provision to have a crossover put it should it ever become viable to allow trains to get to and from Blackfriars bays from London Bridge. It was there in planning stages but someone took them out, however the signalling software already has this written in, just needs the infrastructure on the ground and commissioning. Lack of foresight removing them as it is a nightmare when the Core becomes blocked as there is very little space anywhere to terminate Thameslink trains and start them back, hence GTR cancel trains as soon as there is an issue. Blackfriars would have been ideal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

If you going to cut services on a long term basis, then the timetable needs to be completely rewritten, rather than just removing one train.

For example if you had 4 trains an hour at 00, 15, 30 and 45 past the hour, just removing one service would leave a 30 minute gap between 2 of the trains and 15 minute gaps elsewhere which is daft.

Mmm sounds easy until you factor in that you'd have to change Drivers diagrams as well which is not an easy job. They probably look at removing a drivers diagram and knocking those trains on that diagram out of service, leaving all other diagrams the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Not much of one either as the Rainham via Greenwich has been one train per hour for much of its life, if that.

If they can't run 2tph leading to big service gaps then returning to SE would be welcome

South Eastern returning to full working would be welcome too. Bringing back the Bexleyheath/Greenwich & Greenwich/Bexleyheath rounders would help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Its a combination of that and the fact that the Midland Main Line has a 2 track possession on meaning everything is running on the slow lines. So there isn't the capacity for Thameslink Rainham services to run onto the Midland Main Line. And Thameslink are running from Strood to Rainham.

Also tommorow there is a possession at London Bridge which blocks the Rainham services from running anyway.

Also the Rainham services are frequently diverted via Lewisham and Bexleyheath, so its not like they are binned off when there is even any hint of engineering works.

Also Thameslink services have run London Bridge to Rainham when the Midland is blocked.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Also another big issue is where they can stable units, the only place they can really stable units between London Bridge and Gravesend is at Plumstead where they can only stable 1 unit. And even then there is no guarantee they can use Plumstead as it is a Southeastern site.

Rochester Down Passenger Loop (2x700/0s) ( part of old Rochester station) can and does stable two 700s. And it isn't unknown for Gillingham Depot to hold them too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Could Thameslink eventually become a single, high-intensity metro route? Would probably be quite popular if transferred to London Overground and Camberwell/Walworth stations reopened.

Obviously Bedford-Brighton would stay.

No not with Brighton/Bedford & Cambridges and Horsham/Peterboroughs, hardly metro are they. They should have pushed for the longer distance trains through the core and concentrated Metros on the London Termini. There really is no need for a metro service through the core when you consider the numerous links from core stations to other London connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

My final input to this thread for now. The Rainham to Luton service that so many of you attack shows that a metro service does not fit in with the Thameslink long distance services. Unfortunately the Government insist on this service. However a simple solution would be to run the North Kent service as a Thameslink service from Rainham to Luton with limited stops (semi fast) and reinstate a Dartford to Cannon Street service replacing the Thameslink service on the Greenwich. The semi fast nature of the North Kent "Thameslink" would mean diversion would cause little loss in service, only between Charlton & Blackheath, also would enable easier planned diversion between Dartford and London Bridge during Engineer's work. Signalling wise it is a bit easier at North Kent East Junction signalling on and off the Kent Slow lines through New Cross rather than across all lines to the Greenwich lines. Doing this would then free up pathing through to Charing Cross 2tph allowing thoughts on services out of Charing Cross. The North Kent "Thameslink" could even be run via Sole Street. ( Not sure this is possible though, Swanley to Rochester presently requires a Guard/Conductor as the route is not Driver Only Passed). But as with many of these idea, those with the purse strings or in the case of the Greenwich, those in parliament, decide what we get.

 

[Need2]

I understood the lack of Orpington to Kentish Town service at the moment is down to a shortage of drivers.

Absolutely not the case, we’d (I would anyway) love the extra diagrams/work. Infact Orpington and Ashford (can’t say about any other depots) are supposedly over establishment so I have no idea what the powers to be are thinking!

 

[NorthKent1989]

London Bridge was built to separate the Thameslink trains from South Eastern, to avoid the major conflict at the old Tattenham crossovers between the Eastern and Central lines. Hence the bulding of the dive under at Bermondsey to avoid flat junction conlicts and providing the ludicrous "line of route" platforming at London Bridge. Thameslinks now go through London Bridge without once conflicting with South Eastern Trains. However, the Government insisted against railway professionals that a Thameslink route must run utilising the Greenwich lines as a peace offering to the populous in the GReenwich area who lost their Charing Cross direct service. A hugely unpopular move with the railway professionals because they had just shelved out ex amount of billions to avoid the conflict of Thameslink trains with South Eastern trains. Now the Government insisted on moving that conflict to North Kent East Junction where South Eastern Cannon Street services & Thameslink services conflict once thing become just a couple of minutes late. No chance the Luton - Rainhams will ever disappear.

My final input to this thread for now. The Rainham to Luton service that so many of you attack shows that a metro service does not fit in with the Thameslink long distance services. Unfortunately the Government insist on this service. However a simple solution would be to run the North Kent service as a Thameslink service from Rainham to Luton with limited stops (semi fast) and reinstate a Dartford to Cannon Street service replacing the Thameslink service on the Greenwich. The semi fast nature of the North Kent "Thameslink" would mean diversion would cause little loss in service, only between Charlton & Blackheath, also would enable easier planned diversion between Dartford and London Bridge during Engineer's work. Signalling wise it is a bit easier at North Kent East Junction signalling on and off the Kent Slow lines through New Cross rather than across all lines to the Greenwich lines. Doing this would then free up pathing through to Charing Cross 2tph allowing thoughts on services out of Charing Cross. The North Kent "Thameslink" could even be run via Sole Street. ( Not sure this is possible though, Swanley to Rochester presently requires a Guard/Conductor as the route is not Driver Only Passed). But as with many of these idea, those with the purse strings or in the case of the Greenwich, those in parliament, decide what we get.

The marmite service that is the Luton-Rainham service also came about because at the time of its announcement that such a service would happen (around 2015/16) it was highly anticipated at the time that TfL would take over the South Eastern metro routes to Hayes, Orpington, Sevenoaks, Dartford and Gravesend with SE being left with the mainline and High-speed services, this would have left only the Charing Cross to Gillingham via Blackheath & Woolwich semi fasts, which though classified as a “metro route” it was really a regional/outer-suburban service, similar to the Waterloo-Windsor/Reading, Marylebone-Aylesbury and the London/Tilbury/Southend C2C services that called at larger/interchange stations, however Gillingham is considered too far outside London for it to be part of TfL operations

However SE not wanting this incursion into its rump set of mainline services, binned it off to Thameslink where they added stops unnecessarily and made it into a very long metro route.

And as you correctly said, it’s more of a consolation prize for the Greenwich line than anything else, even in the early drafts of Thameslink 2000 any route to Dartford was always planned to run via Sidcup with peaks via Bexleyheath, no mention of the Greenwich or Woolwich routes at all, they eventually binned all Dartford routes by the early 2010s because of how complex it would be to run such a service, but I still say that the Sidcup line would be best off having the Thameslink service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

Could Thameslink eventually become a single, high-intensity metro route? Would probably be quite popular if transferred to London Overground and Camberwell/Walworth stations reopened.

Obviously Bedford-Brighton would stay.

Couldn’t work really, not without axing Brighton, Cambridge, Bedford, Peterborough, Medway and Horsham off the routes and focused solely on St. Albans, Welwyn, Gatwick, the Sutton Loop, Sevenoaks and Dartford/Gravesend.

I tend to see the Thameslink network today as being akin to the original Metropolitan Railway as it was until the 1930s, only running through the centre of London rather than terminating there, through to the other side of the city.

 

[Mikey C]

The marmite service that is the Luton-Rainham service also came about because at the time of its announcement that such a service would happen (around 2015/16) it was highly anticipated at the time that TfL would take over the South Eastern metro routes to Hayes, Orpington, Sevenoaks, Dartford and Gravesend with SE being left with the mainline and High-speed services, this would have left only the Charing Cross to Gillingham via Blackheath & Woolwich semi fasts, which though classified as a “metro route” it was really a regional/outer-suburban service, similar to the Waterloo-Windsor/Reading, Marylebone-Aylesbury and the LTS services that called at larger/interchange stations.

However SE not wanting this incursion into its rump set of mainline services, binned it off to Thameslink where they added stops unnecessarily and made it into a very long metro route.

And as you correctly said, it’s more of a consolation prize for the Greenwich line than anything else, even in the early drafts of Thameslink 2000 any route to Dartford was always planned to run via Sidcup with peaks via Bexleyheath, no mention of the Greenwich or Woolwich routes at all, they eventually binned all Dartford routes by the early 2010s because of how complex it would be to run such a service, but I still say that the Sidcup line would be best off having the Thameslink service.

Was there a reason why the Thameslink route didn't just directly replace the Gillingham to Charing X via Woolwich A and Lewisham, rather than it becoming a stopper via Greenwich, and a separate stopper created to take over the Charing Cross to Dartford via Lewisham and Woolwich Arsenal section?

It's worth noting that the Lewisham to Woolwich route is still a popular one, which provides a very useful connection.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Was there a reason why the Thameslink route didn't just directly replace the Gillingham to Charing X via Woolwich A and Lewisham, rather than it becoming a stopper via Greenwich, and a separate stopper created to take over the Charing Cross to Dartford via Lewisham and Woolwich Arsenal section?

It's worth noting that the Lewisham to Woolwich route is still a popular one, which provides a very useful connection.

The Woolwich/Lewisham route to Charing Cross as you say is very popular, in my experience it’s often the busiest service off-peak, and Saturdays it’s absolutely rammed where as the Cannon Street and the much lauded Thameslink services being quieter, shows that people still want the West End as a destination

I don’t know why they never just had Thameslink take over the Lewisham/Woolwich route but I think it was mentioned that it was to give the Greenwich line inner stations a better service of some kind, and also it mentioned that the timetable had to be padded out so it ends up with the Thameslink service being slower than a CX or CS service on the same route.

 

[Mikey C]

The Woolwich/Lewisham route to Charing Cross as you say is very popular, in my experience it’s often the busiest service off-peak, and Saturdays it’s absolutely rammed where as the Cannon Street and the much lauded Thameslink services being quieter, shows that people still want the West End as a destination

I don’t know why they never just had Thameslink take over the Lewisham/Woolwich route but I think it was mentioned that it was to give the Greenwich line inner stations a better service of some kind, and also it mentioned that the timetable had to be padded out so it ends up with the Thameslink service being slower than a CX or CS service on the same route.

The Greenwich line used to have a clockwork service every 10 minutes to Cannon Street, I don't know why that was lost.

The route between Lewisham/Blackheath and Charlton is also very well used for football match traffic at Charlton Athletic

 

[cle]

The 10 min Greenwich service behind lost/messed up is a travesty. That route needs that, and likely could support more along there - the amount of development is huge.

And yes to Lewisham-Woolwich semi always seemed most popular to me. Especially at Woolwich. Both there and Abbey Wood will of course have a better service to the City and West End very soon - which Dartford and co can easily feed into. So some of the original route's purpose will dissipate.

I still don't think TL should be on the Dartford lines at all. They should find something else for the paths - if they have to be 12 car then it might need to substitute something through Windmill. Otherwise something via Denmark Hill or Herne Hill.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The Greenwich line used to have a clockwork service every 10 minutes to Cannon Street, I don't know why that was lost.

The route between Lewisham/Blackheath and Charlton is also very well used for football match traffic at Charlton Athletic

This had to with fitting the timetable with the core, so rather than the every ten minute service the line had until 2018, it’s now uneven with large gaps, even larger at the moment with it being 1tph.

Regarding the football traffic I have observed an oddity in which fans will let a Greenwich train pass by but hordes will board a Lewisham train if it’s only a few minutes wait.

The 10 min Greenwich service behind lost/messed up is a travesty. That route needs that, and likely could support more along there - the amount of development is huge.

And yes to Lewisham-Woolwich semi always seemed most popular to me. Especially at Woolwich. Both there and Abbey Wood will of course have a better service to the City and West End very soon - which Dartford and co can easily feed into. So some of the original route's purpose will dissipate.

I still don't think TL should be on the Dartford lines at all. They should find something else for the paths - if they have to be 12 car then it might need to substitute something through Windmill. Otherwise something via Denmark Hill or Herne Hill.

CrossRail will definitely take the load off the Dartford-Woolwich-Lewisham-CX Service I suspect, especially in peaks, it’ll still remain a popular service for Plumstead, Woolwich Arsenal and Charlton of course

If they were ever to revise the Thameslink timetable I’d have the Luton-Rainham service diverted at London Bridge to take over the Epsom train if Possible, otherwise I’d feed it through either Herne Hill-Sole Street or reroute to run via Sidcup, which of all the Dartford routes, is the best line to run Thameslink through

 

[cle]

Ahh yes, Epsom is a good candidate - 10 car platforms on the route at least, I think, if not 12.

Another Norwood Junction to the core service too - and LB platform freed for something else via Peckham Rye perhaps.

 

[JonathanH]

Another Norwood Junction to the core service too

At pretty much the same time in each hour as the existing one.

 

[cle]

It's all being recast down there anyway before long - but if that was an issue, maybe New Cross Gate instead could be slotted in, instead. A shame to lose it, and it'll only increase in importance with more ELL and if the BLE ever happens. Could become a good inner hub.

 

[JonathanH]

It's all being recast down there anyway before long - but if that was an issue, maybe New Cross Gate instead could be slotted in, instead. A shame to lose it, and it'll only increase in importance with more ELL and if the BLE ever happens. Could become a good inner hub.

The problem with Thameslink and any recast is that there are constraints imposed by what happens on the other side of London. A recast between London Bridge and East Croydon doesn't change the path between Luton and St Pancras.

It is clearly a shame that New Cross Gate was lost as an interchange but, at the same time, stopping trains there on the fast line platforms isn't ideal. I guess that what is needed is to have one stop at New Cross Gate southbound immediately behind a train scheduled to stop at Norwood Junction. That said, from a practical perspective, one of the trains has to call at both Norwood Junction and East Croydon. Id imagine that any train calling at New Cross Gate also ideally has to go to East Croydon to be most useful.

Why is the line being recast? Is this the view that London Overground expect to run more trains to Crystal Palace? Is that still happening? How much does the slow line timetable truly require a recast of the trains on the fast lines?

 

[traingeek97]

It’ll be interesting to see the impact Crossrail has on passenger numbers on the Greenwich line. With services from Abbey Wood and Woolwich I think this will be an attractive alternative for those travelling into central London. Depending on your final destination it might also be quicker to travel from Greenwich to Woolwich for Crossrail. There’s also the option of travelling on the DLR from Greenwich to Canary Wharf for Crossrail.

Rainham to Luton seems to be quite restrictive on crew rostering - with most drivers only doing one return journey per shift. I think it’d make more sense for the service to run between Rainham and West Hampstead or St Albans.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

It’ll be interesting to see the impact Crossrail has on passenger numbers on the Greenwich line. With services from Abbey Wood and Woolwich I think this will be an attractive alternative for those travelling into central London. Depending on your final destination it might also be quicker to travel from Greenwich to Woolwich for Crossrail. There’s also the option of travelling on the DLR from Greenwich to Canary Wharf for Crossrail.

Rainham to Luton seems to be quite restrictive on crew rostering - with most drivers only doing one return journey per shift. I think it’d make more sense for the service to run between Rainham and West Hampstead or St Albans.

No capacity for it to run between just Rainnham and St Albans, as you can only turn a max of 4tph around at St Albans. Unless you extended one of the Sutton's to Luton instead.

 

[swt_passenger]

It’ll be interesting to see the impact Crossrail has on passenger numbers on the Greenwich line. With services from Abbey Wood and Woolwich I think this will be an attractive alternative for those travelling into central London. Depending on your final destination it might also be quicker to travel from Greenwich to Woolwich for Crossrail. There’s also the option of travelling on the DLR from Greenwich to Canary Wharf for Crossrail.

They expect about 50% of passengers currently passing through Abbey Wood to transfer to Crossrail.
I posted a link to the source in a post last year, here:

Crossrail - Construction updates and progress towards opening (now expected 24 May 2022)

I mean what are they going to do, declare it's time to "shut her down" because they need £150m more on an 18bn budget? Yeah, right. There should probably be an inquiry about the cost overruns but it's likely not going to hold up the project. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that certain...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[whoosh]

However, there is provision to have a crossover put it should it ever become viable to allow trains to get to and from Blackfriars bays from London Bridge. It was there in planning stages but someone took them out, however the signalling software already has this written in, just needs the infrastructure on the ground and commissioning. Lack of foresight removing them as it is a nightmare when the Core becomes blocked as there is very little space anywhere to terminate Thameslink trains and start them back, hence GTR cancel trains as soon as there is an issue. Blackfriars would have been ideal.

Supposedly, so the story goes, Network Rail removed the crossover for London Bridge to Blackfriars bays whilst the Head of the Thameslink Programme at GTR (or whatever their title was), was on annual leave, and his deputy signed it off without realising the change had been made.
Returning from a nice relaxing holiday, he was apparently not best pleased to say the least upon making the discovery!

 

[Bald Rick]

Supposedly, so the story goes, Network Rail removed the crossover for London Bridge to Blackfriars bays whilst the Head of the Thameslink Programme at GTR (or whatever their title was), was on annual leave, and his deputy signed it off without realising the change had been made.
Returning from a nice relaxing holiday, he was apparently not best pleased to say the least upon making the discovery!

that’s rubbish, I’m afraid.

the crossovers were never in the design. (Which was done in 2009).

 

[whoosh]

that’s rubbish, I’m afraid.

the crossovers were never in the design. (Which was done in 2009).

Good old railway rumours!

 

[SE%Traveller]

Absolutely not the case, we’d (I would anyway) love the extra diagrams/work. Infact Orpington and Ashford (can’t say about any other depots) are supposedly over establishment so I have no idea what the powers to be are thinking!

Wow, that's interesting to know. Just started back to my commute from St Pancras to Denmark Hill and thankful this this is the last week of the old timetable.

I compared the May 22 Thameslink timetable to that of 2019 and off the all day services all have been fully restored except the Orpington one so i hope it get restored soon.

Also a couple of annoying short running to Blackfriars in the Peaks. Not an issue going UP but on the DOWN that gives and effective 25/ 5 minutes from St Pancras!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

It’ll be interesting to see the impact Crossrail has on passenger numbers on the Greenwich line. With services from Abbey Wood and Woolwich I think this will be an attractive alternative for those travelling into central London. Depending on your final destination it might also be quicker to travel from Greenwich to Woolwich for Crossrail. There’s also the option of travelling on the DLR from Greenwich to Canary Wharf for Crossrail.

Rainham to Luton seems to be quite restrictive on crew rostering - with most drivers only doing one return journey per shift. I think it’d make more sense for the service to run between Rainham and West Hampstead or St Albans.

Looking at realtime trains Abbey Wood Farringdon by Crossrail 20m, by Thameslink 40mins with the former running every 5 mins.... Abbey Wood to Farringdon