Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[physics34]

8-car units for instance will be used for Tattenham Corner-Cambridge. Already a lot of station lengthening/SDO needed for that

yeh, although ive heard nothing about platform extensions on the tatt branch... so i assume itll be all SDO down there.

 

[Class377/5]

yeh, although ive heard nothing about platform extensions on the tatt branch... so i assume itll be all SDO down there.

Correct as I understand. Tattenham already has 8 car trains operating so it's a simple swap for 377 to 700s.

 

[southern442]

Correct as I understand. Tattenham already has 8 car trains operating so it's a simple swap for 377 to 700s.

Are there any stations on that branch that are (or close to) 8-cars in length? Perhaps Coulsdon Town for example? I was under the impresssion that the announcements just tell you to join the front 4 coaches for all stations because there is no SDO on the 455's that sometimes work this line.

 

[hwl]

Any idea if New Cross Gate or Norwood Junction are going to get lengthened or will they just get infrequent 8 car TL services?

 

[neilm]

Any idea if New Cross Gate or Norwood Junction are going to get lengthened or will they just get infrequent 8 car TL services?

8 cars at both stations via the Horsham service which stops there.

I think norwood junction is getting a platform back but not sure when or if it will be 8 or 12 car.

 

[southern442]

Any idea if New Cross Gate or Norwood Junction are going to get lengthened or will they just get infrequent 8 car TL services?

I heard that Thameslink were planning to stop at Norwood Junction, but that might have been dropped. I'm not sure about New Cross Gate, the current Horsham trains stop there, but wether this will continue with the Peterborough-Horsham trains, I don't know. I'm guessing not though, as New Cross Gate is rather neglected as a key station on the network.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think norwood junction is getting a platform back but not sure when or if it will be 8 or 12 car.

Norwood Junction's extra platform (on the down side) was a development project around 2012 or so, proposed in connection with terminating and reversing some peak trains from the Crystal Palace direction, this was supposedly more economical with rolling stock diagrams, however last time we discussed it the details had been completely removed from NR's CP5 enhancement plans. Possible reason being that the combined TSGN franchise will shortly have more rolling stock that it can use...

 

[Class377/5]

Any idea if New Cross Gate or Norwood Junction are going to get lengthened or will they just get infrequent 8 car TL services?

They are getting the current 2tph Horsham - London Bridge (Peterborough from May 2018) 12 car 700 service. 12 cars now in peak so same arrangements will take place.

Norwood Junction's extra platform (on the down side) was a development project around 2012 or so, proposed in connection with terminating and reversing some peak trains from the Crystal Palace direction, this was supposedly more economical with rolling stock diagrams, however last time we discussed it the details had been completely removed from NR's CP5 enhancement plans. Possible reason being that the combined TSGN franchise will shortly have more rolling stock that it can use...

The extra platform Norwood is still the cards but it's for the current Beckenham Junction service to be diverted too as Talbot want to double track the route. Note this is a TfL lead scheme so why might not been in the NR plans.

 

[swt_passenger]

The extra platform Norwood is still the cards but it's for the current Beckenham Junction service to be diverted too as Talbot want to double track the route. Note this is a TfL lead scheme so why might not been in the NR plans.

That would make sense. I assume your 'Talbot' above is a really poor autocorrect for Tramlink?

 

[hassaanhc]

Are there any stations on that branch that are (or close to) 8-cars in length? Perhaps Coulsdon Town for example? I was under the impresssion that the announcements just tell you to join the front 4 coaches for all stations because there is no SDO on the 455's that sometimes work this line.

The intermediate stations fit in the region of 4-5 cars. Im not sure if Coulsdon Town was even extended during the works for the new building.

 

[Bald Rick]

Norwood Junction's extra platform (on the down side) was a development project around 2012 or so, proposed in connection with terminating and reversing some peak trains from the Crystal Palace direction, this was supposedly more economical with rolling stock diagrams, however last time we discussed it the details had been completely removed from NR's CP5 enhancement plans. Possible reason being that the combined TSGN franchise will shortly have more rolling stock that it can use...

It was canned as there was no point spending several million on putting in extra bidi signalling now when it is all due to be renewed in the next 5 years or so, and it thus comes almost for 'free'.

 

[physics34]

Are there any stations on that branch that are (or close to) 8-cars in length? Perhaps Coulsdon Town for example? I was under the impresssion that the announcements just tell you to join the front 4 coaches for all stations because there is no SDO on the 455's that sometimes work this line.

Reedham 8 car
Coulsdon Town 8 car
Woodmansterne 6 car
Chipstead/Kingswood/Tadworth 5 car
TAttenham COrner can actually fit 9 on if i am not mistaken.

The above is just of the top of my head so may not be 100%.

Yeh, it is very lazy announcing that for ALL trains as you say cos 377s have got SDO so the announcement is wrong. Even worse is that Vic and London Bridge dont announce anything at all to do with short platforms.

 

[Yabbadabba]

It was canned as there was no point spending several million on putting in extra bidi signalling now when it is all due to be renewed in the next 5 years or so, and it thus comes almost for 'free'.

Got as far as receiving the 1st round of the scheme plans, it was horrendously complex with the dual slots on the signalling for what they were offering. Got dropped as know one could see the need for it and for it to work properly we were suggesting that elements of VASC P3 got transferred to TBASC P1a, then the project just died.

 

[Class377/5]

That would make sense. I assume your 'Talbot' above is a really poor autocorrect for Tramlink?

Yes it is. Android tablet is very temperamental.

 

[southern442]

Reedham 8 car
Coulsdon Town 8 car
Woodmansterne 6 car
Chipstead/Kingswood/Tadworth 5 car
TAttenham COrner can actually fit 9 on if i am not mistaken.

The above is just of the top of my head so may not be 100%.

Yeh, it is very lazy announcing that for ALL trains as you say cos 377s have got SDO so the announcement is wrong. Even worse is that Vic and London Bridge dont announce anything at all to do with short platforms.

It is very lazy, you can see it on the Caterham line as well, for the most part they just lock the trailing set out of use for the whole branch line!

 

[hassaanhc]

Reedham 8 car
Coulsdon Town 8 car
Woodmansterne 6 car
Chipstead/Kingswood/Tadworth 5 car
TAttenham COrner can actually fit 9 on if i am not mistaken.

The above is just of the top of my head so may not be 100%.

Yeh, it is very lazy announcing that for ALL trains as you say cos 377s have got SDO so the announcement is wrong. Even worse is that Vic and London Bridge dont announce anything at all to do with short platforms.

Thanks for the correction . Looks like the platform lengths on the branch are half-decent. The Caterham branch is awful. I remember using Whyteleafe a while back and saw SDO5 by the stop mark, and the other two intermediate stations are not much better.

I remember Victoria did announce train lengths, but yes London Bridge doesn't. Nor does LOROL (no surprise :roll. Clapham Junction doesn't announce for many Southern services. If Southern's system is like SWT's system, it doesn't know what stock is working it, and the short platforms are hard coded for the most restrictive stock used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is very lazy, you can see it on the Caterham line as well, for the most part they just lock the trailing set out of use for the whole branch line!

Even worse is when a pair of 455s escape onto the Chertsey branch; usually the train does not call at the short platforms! Both platforms at Chertsey fit 4, and the up platform at Virginia Water (towards Staines) fits 5.

 

[southern442]

Thanks for the correction . Looks like the platform lengths on the branch are half-decent. The Caterham branch is awful. I remember using Whyteleafe a while back and saw SDO5 by the stop mark, and the other two intermediate stations are not much better.

I remember Victoria did announce train lengths, but yes London Bridge doesn't. Nor does LOROL (no surprise :roll. Clapham Junction doesn't announce for many Southern services. If Southern's system is like SWT's system, it doesn't know what stock is working it, and the short platforms are hard coded for the most restrictive stock used.

Whytleafe can accomodate 6 coaches I think, but I'm not sure about the others. I remember quite a while ago, whilst living on the section of the BML between Clapham and Croydon, the announcements just used to say to join the front 6 coaches for Whytleafe and the front 5 for Kenley and Whytleafe South. There was no announcement for Caterham though.

As far as announcing train lengths go, I have heard it done at Victoria, I've never heard it done at London Bridge, and short platforms and train lengths are always done at East Croydon. Clapham Junction does announce lengths for some services, but then it makes up loads of short platforms. For example, on a 12-car East Grinstead train, it says that you need to join the front 8 for Lingfield and Dormans (which is correct), but then the front 9 for all stations between Sanderstead and Oxted inclusive, which is wrong as only Riddlesdown and Woldingham have short platforms there.

LOROL is the absolute worst for train anouncements, they never announce train lengths or short platforms (I am willing to bet that they don't even hae that sort of info in the system!) and don't even get me started on trains that divide :roll::roll: when a train divides, the LOROL announcements say that the train is only going to the stations on the front portion of the train after the dividing point. For example, at New Cross Gate, if the train was for Caterham and Tattenham Corner, It would say that the train was "a Southern service to Caterham, calling at Kenley, Whytleafe, Whytleafe South and Caterham." Doesn't even mention any other stops, or the other portion of the train! It needs to be fixed as it has confused many a passenger .

 

[FOH]

A manager told me the announcements aren't LOROL's fault. They need DARWIN to be compatible and while LOROL already have it, Southern are the last TOC in the country to roll it out.

 

[Via Bank]

A manager told me the announcements aren't LOROL's fault. They need DARWIN to be compatible and while LOROL already have it, Southern are the last TOC in the country to roll it out.

Every TOC in the country turned on Darwin CIS at some point at the end of March or April (forget which.) At least two (SN and SWT) then swiftly disconnected, because the accuracy and reliability of the predictions was so dire.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is Darwin the software that runs the auto PA announcements?

 

[Class377/5]

Is Darwin the software that runs the auto PA announcements?

Not at all. DARWIN is a back office system that links all TOCs CIS (and various others bits). The idea is for a single database to update from. So if Thameslink alter a train, it will update not only thier CIS but Southeastern, Southern and SWT automatically.

However this is majorly off topic folks.

 

[D365]

Is Darwin the software that runs the auto PA announcements?

MITRAC is the name of the Bombardier *star TMS which takes care of automated announcements and all other on-train functions. But obviously that's not relevant to a discussion on the Class 700 Desiro City

 

[Peter Sarf]

The very same locals who were demanding a direct service because a two minute change across the platform is not good enough - they simply must take precedence over all operational efficiencies and common sense. Greater good and all that :roll:

Bugs me that layout at Blackfriars. The Through lines used to be on the West side and were moved to the East side at great expense I imagine. Why did they not just move the Southbound line only to the East side. Place both through platforms on the inside of the layout (so shared with a terminating platform). Then with the terminating platforms in the centre there was a 50% chance of a simple cross platform change in either direction. The other, worst, 50% would be a requirement to walk on the level via the North end concourse,

The above idea would also facilitate turning back late running Thameslink services at Blackfriars with the minimum of conflicting moves.

The current design seems pointless while the Wimbledon loop continues through the core - which it probably should do !.

 

[Class377/5]

Bugs me that layout at Blackfriars. The Through lines used to be on the West side and were moved to the East side at great expense I imagine. Why did they not just move the Southbound line only to the East side. Place both through platforms on the inside of the layout (so shared with a terminating platform). Then with the terminating platforms in the centre there was a 50% chance of a simple cross platform change in either direction. The other, worst, 50% would be a requirement to walk on the level via the North end concourse,

The above idea would also facilitate turning back late running Thameslink services at Blackfriars with the minimum of conflicting moves.

The current design seems pointless while the Wimbledon loop continues through the core - which it probably should do !.

This been done to death (and off topic) but was at. It would have required a flyover from London Bridge Up Thameslink that would have to climb from a viaduct to them rise another while curving over for tracks from Elephant & Castle. There is limited space to do this and would have required land take. Not to mention the visual impact of the new viaduct over two other railway ones creating a six/seven floor high block. And it would have spoil the St Pauls sightlines. That affected the plans for Blackfriars.

I don't buy this issue of the loop going through being a big thing. Currently the line is supporting this so it's already happening. It's just an excuse for poor infrastructure if you say you can't do this regularly.

 

[edwin_m]

This been done to death (and off topic) but was at. It would have required a flyover from London Bridge Up Thameslink that would have to climb from a viaduct to them rise another while curving over for tracks from Elephant & Castle. There is limited space to do this and would have required land take. Not to mention the visual impact of the new viaduct over two other railway ones creating a six/seven floor high block. And it would have spoil the St Pauls sightlines. That affected the plans for Blackfriars.

I don't buy this issue of the loop going through being a big thing. Currently the line is supporting this so it's already happening. It's just an excuse for poor infrastructure if you say you can't do this regularly.

The original idea was that the London Bridge trains would run through and the Loop trains would terminate. With the bay platforms to the west there would be no sharing of track between these groups of trains. As it is, this is the only flat junction on the busiest core section of Thameslink and therefore probably limits the capacity and reliability of the service as a whole.

 

[FOH]

The original idea was that the London Bridge trains would run through and the Loop trains would terminate. With the bay platforms to the west there would be no sharing of track between these groups of trains. As it is, this is the only flat junction on the busiest core section of Thameslink and therefore probably limits the capacity and reliability of the service as a whole.

Won't fast Southern services be crossing at BrickLayer's Arms? I understood the dive under was for slow Southern services only.

 

[edwin_m]

Won't fast Southern services be crossing at BrickLayer's Arms? I understood the dive under was for slow Southern services only.

Either way this isn't the busiest section of the core, because the Wimbledon Loop trains have dropped off at Blackfriars.

 

[gtr driver]

Regarding platform lengths on the Cats and Tats, it's a bit more complicated than it looks...prepare for a bit of mad railway logistics...

Platform lengths on the two branches vary. The shortest is 5 coaches. With 377s, no problem, they will lock out coaches as required and tell you about it. 8 car 455s, without SDO, can't cope with different platform lengths. But why is the whole back unit locked out rather than just the rear three coaches? Because fire regs require a certain number of exits, and the one remaining coach locked at both gangway ends would not provide them. If the stock were to change the station announcements could not cope with it so they stick to "front 4 coaches only" to cover all scenarios.

Unfortunately this does result in some delays with physical lock outs having to be done then reversed and passengers understandably trying to enter the locked unit at Reedham and Coulsdon Town. Class 700s will get round this. Hopefully the post 2018 ability to reduce 455 use will see 377s used on the non Thameslink Caterhams to avoid the issue on that branch.

Short platforms on other routes are more straightforward. East Grinstead is only worked by 377s with guards so there is always SDO plus announcements - it never changes. But stations such as West Norwood up and Hackbridge are worked by both types of stock. 377s will just lock the relevant coaches out. 455s won't but it's a case of 8 cars WILL fit but there is little margin of error or the bit of platform won't meet current standards - you'd have great troubles with a buggy in the 8th coach at West Norwood for example due to the narrow width there - but 455s never run more than 8 coaches long. So regardless of stock the auto announcer at Vic can happily say front 7 coaches only and know that it will be okay even if the stock changes.

 

[Class377/5]

The original idea was that the London Bridge trains would run through and the Loop trains would terminate. With the bay platforms to the west there would be no sharing of track between these groups of trains. As it is, this is the only flat junction on the busiest core section of Thameslink and therefore probably limits the capacity and reliability of the service as a whole.

It was not the original suggestion at all. It was about 15yrs to late to be that. It was however an idea/suggestion but was offical policy.

You seem to believe that Blackfriars Junction would have been conflict free, no it wouldn't have. Still mixing the same amount of trains from Denmark Hill in that idea so your thoughts of no track sharing was never going to correct.

Blackfriars Junction always going to have conflicts (fly over/under only way to avoid this) but it's capable of 30/32tph in both direction (this is official limit of Thameslink come 2018) through there so it's hardly the end of the world.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Once Thameslink infrastructure upgrades are finished AND before/after 700s will there be any services terminating at Blackfriars that have come via Elephant & Castle ?.

I assumed not many services terminate from E&C so I wondered why did they bother swapping the terminating platforms from East Side to West side. Was the main reason that the Wimbledon loop trains were originally planned to terminate at Blackfriars ?. That plan/aspiration must have changed a while back because the 700s required to operate the Wimbledon loop must have been ordered a while back.

I accept the argument that the core can cope. Obviously (to me) the flat junction South of Blackfriars must be the most restricting part of the routes ONCE all the other upgrades are done. My point earlier was how much use was it to swap the terminating platforms and could a better cross platform arrangement have been achieved thus mitigating the inconvenience of Wimbledon loop services terminating at Blackfriars. Off topic anyway so sorry.