Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[AM9]

As it happens I spent some time at King's Cross yesterday during the evening peak. Virtually every evening peak down service left with at least some spare seats, some trains left with only a few people in those cars furthest from the barriers, and the main trainshed could be seen with some 8-car trains, as well as some 5-car (Hull Trains). There is plenty of scope for today's service to be retained and extended to 12-car as far as possible - should any further growth provision be required then Thameslink could quite happily be superimposed on top of that should no other better solution be available.

Meanwhile the Moorgate service continues to see crush loading with not much relief in prospect - a bit of extra space on the new trains in place of unused middle cabs, otherwise the only 'improvement' here will be standing space in place of seating.

So that is the picture in early 2016. Come 2019 when the Thameslink Progrqamme is scheduled to complete, there will be few if any vacant seats. Come back in 2030, (if the current service was maintained, there would be plenty standing, maybe crush loading as it is for the Moorgate trains. As for 2040, which is somewhere near mid-life for the 700s, the GN services would be as packed as the Thameslink trains were before the 377s were parachuted in to remove the 4-car 319s in the peak.
The signs are already there. Large scale developments all along all commuter routes in the south-east are at various stages of implementation. This government is so embarassed at its failure to address the desperate housing shortage over the last 5 years, that it is trampling over local planning committees and the rules governing planning so that builders ready to capitalise on peoples plight, will help cover their shame.

 

[Bald Rick]

The above would cure many of the reliability worries, and reduce the amount of inappropriate class 700 use.

But it doesn't solve the 'reliability worries' that most posters on this thread are worried about, which are late trains from the south delaying trains on the ECML and 24tph through the core. All it does is remove Cambridge from Thameslink, and there are some very significant benefits for linking Cambridge with the Thameslink route. Not least the people who live on the line who want to get to stations between Farringdon and London Bridge, for whom Thameslink will be great.

Besides, the Thameslink route hasn't been that unreliable, at least not in my 13 years of commuting. It's not great in the snow (but that's mostly the 319s), and if the drivers get grumpy about something it can be fun for a while, but generally it's pretty good and no different than all the other commutes I have done (WCML, ECML, SWML for three).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No amount of timetable modelling resolves the issue about what will happen if two trains with different stopping patterns are trying to share the same track, Thameslink by its very nature greatly increases the likelihood of this scenario happening, more regularly than today.

That's precisely what timetable modelling does do. It helps to identify where there are weaknesses in the timetable and then resolve them. It also helps to develop regulation strategies so that if two trains are approaching the decision point coincidentally, the right call can be made about which goes first. The second train will then lose 2 minutes at most, and the implications of that are modelled.

 

[gtr driver]

Are you suggesting that the only valid opinions in this forum thread are those that agree with yours?

I though the whole point of a thread discussion is to allow a reasoned debate between people who might have differing views. You seek at all points to deflect criticism of the Class 700 and the Thameslink project by declaring those criticisms as unreal, unimportant and unreasonable.

If you like a reasoned debate why do you keep coming back at people with inside knowledge, experience of rail operations and properly modelled data with your own speculation and anecdotal evidence? What is the point of them trying to answer your questions or allay your fears if you won't take on board anything they say?

 

[jon0844]

The signs are already there. Large scale developments all along all commuter routes in the south-east are at various stages of implementation. This government is so embarassed at its failure to address the desperate housing shortage over the last 5 years, that it is trampling over local planning committees and the rules governing planning so that builders ready to capitalise on peoples plight, will help cover their shame.

Funny you mention that. In about 30 minutes I'll be going along to a meeting to see plans for 1,100 new homes at the back of the Hatfield Business Park on what I believe was set up as a park - but, in the small print, was always destined to be used to extract minerals and then reinstated in the most suitable way.

Seems that the plan is to extract minerals then build houses on it. No more park (bar a few a token gestures, dotted around as mini parks and some small man-made lakes).

That's all in addition to council plans, which means many thousands of homes just for Hatfield - let alone other stations on the ECML.

Assuming Hatfield and WGC continue to be popular choices for people wanting to move out of London to upgrade their homes, or indeed move out because they can't afford to buy anything at all in London, that's likely a fair few extra bums on seats in the next 10-20 years.

BTW, I fully respect those who have detailed data on how things will work - and have no doubt that when things all go to plan, it will work nicely. I'm just being a bit more cynical as we all know how quickly things can go wrong. Plus I'm putting most of my 'fear' in the human elements, namely passengers, making things go wrong - not the hard work by planners who know their stuff.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This government is so embarassed at its failure to address the desperate housing shortage over the last 5 years, that it is trampling over local planning committees and the rules governing planning so that builders ready to capitalise on peoples plight, will help cover their shame.

Planning rules are pretty much the only control government has over housebuilding, short of subsidising it (which it already does through Help to Buy and indirectly by not charging VAT on new build houses)

 

[bramling]

But it doesn't solve the 'reliability worries' that most posters on this thread are worried about, which are late trains from the south delaying trains on the ECML and 24tph through the core. All it does is remove Cambridge from Thameslink, and there are some very significant benefits for linking Cambridge with the Thameslink route. Not least the people who live on the line who want to get to stations between Farringdon and London Bridge, for whom Thameslink will be great.

Besides, the Thameslink route hasn't been that unreliable, at least not in my 13 years of commuting. It's not great in the snow (but that's mostly the 319s), and if the drivers get grumpy about something it can be fun for a while, but generally it's pretty good and no different than all the other commutes I have done (WCML, ECML, SWML for three).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That's precisely what timetable modelling does do. It helps to identify where there are weaknesses in the timetable and then resolve them. It also helps to develop regulation strategies so that if two trains are approaching the decision point coincidentally, the right call can be made about which goes first. The second train will then lose 2 minutes at most, and the implications of that are modelled.

It does ease (ease, not eliminate) the reliability concerns, as a late-running northbound train bound for Peterborough conflicts with a lot less than it would on Cambridge line. Apart from, maybe, between Digswell and Stevenage the effect of late running going north from Hitchin towards Peterborough is minimal. It won't catch up with anything, and the only trains to catch up are the peak fasts - which have at least the option to use the fast lines if necessary. Obviously the passengers won't appreciate the late running due to a problem at, sfor example, East Croydon - but at least it's more contained.

Likewise turning some trains at Letchworth avoids 2tph all stations on the Cambridge branch, which are the ones most likely to cause chaos if running off book. If Cambridge branch passengers want to access Thameslink destinations they would still have connection opportunities available - a price to pay for guaranteed better all-round performance, and more 12-car services.

The Cambridge-Tattenham Corner service is the weakest link. It doesn't provide a good journey time to London from the outer reaches (Foxton to Finsbury Park will be 15 stops), the capacity and frequency simply isn't needed at the Cambridge end, whilst at the London end it will lock in 8-car trains at busy stations like Hitchin and Hatfield.

It's all very well to say a regulating decision might cause "2 minutes at the most", but this is simplistic at best. A fast train stuck behind an all-stations between Hitchin and Cambridge can lose over 15 mins (more during times of poor rail adhesion). If you don't let it run it could just end up delaying the next fast one instead. Rather than risking this issue coming up time after time, better to not have the issue from the outset. The best regulating decision will always in reality be the "least worst" option, the best situation is for both trains to run on time and in their correct path - the best way to achieve this is to have a robust timetable and service pattern, sticking 6tph on a double-track railway with a difference in running times of over 15 mins between fastest and slowest services is anything but robust, the situation is even worse if 4 of these are coming from the other side of London.

Thameslink is better suited to high-frequency stopping services. The trains are being optimised for this. This is exactly the model being adopted by Crossrail.

 

[RepTCTC]

Planning rules are pretty much the only control government has over housebuilding, short of subsidising it (which it already does through Help to Buy and indirectly by not charging VAT on new build houses)

Veering somewhat OT, but IMHO the greatest control exerted by governments (Labour were just as bad) is government support for unsustainable price rises (we're where we are deliberately) as a means of ensuring re-election ... leading to developers only really wanting to build at the top of the cycle and make money by land-banking instead of building.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, Governments (and those in opposition) can argue all they want about the need to build more houses, but many developers are in no real rush.

For one thing, if they limit production they can maximise profits and prevent themselves devaluing properties.

I do think Governments that promise to sold the housing crisis will actually need to get councils building their own houses again.

 

[bramling]

Yes, Governments (and those in opposition) can argue all they want about the need to build more houses, but many developers are in no real rush.

For one thing, if they limit production they can maximise profits and prevent themselves devaluing properties.

I do think Governments that promise to sold the housing crisis will actually need to get councils building their own houses again.

I find the word crisis is a little exaggerated in respect of housing.

Having mass homeless on the streets because their physically isn't accommodation available would be a crisis.

People not being afford to live in there ideally-desired area because the interaction of demand versus supply has pushed market price above their affordability is not a crisis, even if it is undesirable for the affected individuals. If this means certain professions have difficulty recruiting then they would simply have to increase the wage offerred until they can attract what they need.

At least this government seems to be making efforts to improve the performance of non-south-east areas of the country. The policy, intentional or otherwise, from 1997 to 2010 seemed to be at best to turn a complete blind-eye to population growth, and at worst encouraging it, whilst making absolutely no effort to provide supporting infrastructure - with the worst-affected area being London and south-east. Any increase in population size was always going to push up house prices in an area already heavily populated and built over. A journey on a route like the Hertfordshire sections of A1(M) or M1 today is a highly unpleasant experience at most times of day compared to the 1990s.

 

[richa2002]

^^ Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[The Box Photter]

If you like a reasoned debate why do you keep coming back at people with inside knowledge, experience of rail operations and properly modelled data with your own speculation and anecdotal evidence? What is the point of them trying to answer your questions or allay your fears if you won't take on board anything they say?

Because the attitude displayed by those people is "I know better than you, you're only a passenger". Its the same patronising attitude that is so prevalent when anyone who uses a train service has the temerity to question why something is being done that makes their journey worse than it has to be. I agree that my evidence is not empirical, but anecdotal evidence is still based on my bitter experience and observations. If they weren't trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, there wouldn't be so much need for passenger flow modelling.

In addition, the response is never a direct answer to my point. It is always couched within the spin beloved of politicians, engineers and those appointed to senior positions. Their main aim in life being to deflect criticism and ensure that when there is a faecal/air conditioning interface moment, none of the fall out hits them.

I've been subject the the daily horror that is travelling by Thameslink/FCC/Thameslink for more than 11 years and I can tell you that it has always been unreliable, for a myriad of interconnecting reasons. There hasn't been a major meltdown for a few weeks, but every day I play the game of "how late will the train be" as I arrive at Blackfriars in the evening. I'll give you a list and you can cross off any that will be solved by Class 700:

- Poor industrial relations between drivers and management
- Too few drivers
- Non-compulsory weekend shifts
- Sub-standard OHLE equipment
- The need to interface Thameslink with EMT trains
- Only two platforms at St Pancras low level
- No "plan B" when things go wrong
- Lack of reliable, relevant and up to date information for passengers when things go wrong
- Over complicated allocation of units to diagrams, meaning that a train late into Brighton can cause delays at Bedford (soon to be Cambridge/Peterborough)
- Too many passengers wanting to travel non-stop from St Albans into London & reverse
- Inner suburban stations with platforms too short to accommodate 12-car trains
- Wimbledon Loop trains running through the Core instead of terminating at Blackfriars
- Lack of priority given to Thameslink trains by signallers in 3rd rail land
- 3rd rail land - unreliable power supply, signals, bridges that keep getting hit by lorries, bottlenecks at crucial junctions and conflicting movements of other trains
- Nowhere to put a 12-car unit if it breaks down in the Core
- Unreliability of rolling stock - I'm willing to bet £1 that a Class 700 falls over on its first day in revenue earning service because of a failure in a minor computer or electrical system - Deus Ex Machina only works in the movies
- Lack of understanding as to what regular users want - we don't want more room to stand, we want longer trains with more seats that are an improvement on what has gone before
- Finally, the anticipation of what Farringdon Station will be like when Crossrail opens

Reading this list, I wonder why I still commute. Well, its because I like my job in London and I don't want to have to pay an obscene amount of money to live in a grimy London suburb.

 

[asylumxl]

- Lack of reliable, relevant and up to date information for passengers when things go wrong

This is one of my main gripes with TL services, I experienced it again today. The train I was on was delayed heading south to London. An alteration to the stopping pattern was announced by the CIS at Farringdon. Only problem was a different pattern was announced at City Thameslink, then another different pattern at Blackfriars. Luckily I asked the dispatcher at Blackfriars who was thankfully correct.

I truly hope for big improvements in informations when these new trains start coming in to service.

 

[jon0844]

Those huge colour screens certainly need to offer good levels of Information, as the mock up alluded to, but didn't actually show properly.

Has anyone here who has been on the real thing got any info about the screens, and if they're actually operational during the testing?

 

[gtr driver]

Because the attitude displayed by those people is "I know better than you, you're only a passenger". Its the same patronising attitude that is so prevalent when anyone who uses a train service has the temerity to question why something is being done that makes their journey worse than it has to be. I agree that my evidence is not empirical, but anecdotal evidence is still based on my bitter experience and observations. If they weren't trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, there wouldn't be so much need for passenger flow modelling.

In addition, the response is never a direct answer to my point. It is always couched within the spin beloved of politicians, engineers and those appointed to senior positions. Their main aim in life being to deflect criticism and ensure that when there is a faecal/air conditioning interface moment, none of the fall out hits them.

I've been subject the the daily horror that is travelling by Thameslink/FCC/Thameslink for more than 11 years and I can tell you that it has always been unreliable, for a myriad of interconnecting reasons. There hasn't been a major meltdown for a few weeks, but every day I play the game of "how late will the train be" as I arrive at Blackfriars in the evening. I'll give you a list and you can cross off any that will be solved by Class 700:

- Poor industrial relations between drivers and management
- Too few drivers
- Non-compulsory weekend shifts
- Sub-standard OHLE equipment
- The need to interface Thameslink with EMT trains
- Only two platforms at St Pancras low level
- No "plan B" when things go wrong
- Lack of reliable, relevant and up to date information for passengers when things go wrong
- Over complicated allocation of units to diagrams, meaning that a train late into Brighton can cause delays at Bedford (soon to be Cambridge/Peterborough)
- Too many passengers wanting to travel non-stop from St Albans into London & reverse
- Inner suburban stations with platforms too short to accommodate 12-car trains
- Wimbledon Loop trains running through the Core instead of terminating at Blackfriars
- Lack of priority given to Thameslink trains by signallers in 3rd rail land
- 3rd rail land - unreliable power supply, signals, bridges that keep getting hit by lorries, bottlenecks at crucial junctions and conflicting movements of other trains
- Nowhere to put a 12-car unit if it breaks down in the Core
- Unreliability of rolling stock - I'm willing to bet £1 that a Class 700 falls over on its first day in revenue earning service because of a failure in a minor computer or electrical system - Deus Ex Machina only works in the movies
- Lack of understanding as to what regular users want - we don't want more room to stand, we want longer trains with more seats that are an improvement on what has gone before
- Finally, the anticipation of what Farringdon Station will be like when Crossrail opens

Reading this list, I wonder why I still commute. Well, its because I like my job in London and I don't want to have to pay an obscene amount of money to live in a grimy London suburb.

How have you been patronised and deemed "only" a passenger? If you ask a question surely you hope the answer will come from someone who by definition is better informed on the subject or has a wider view of the whole?

I don't know what you mean by "spin". On this forum I have read perfectly clear and reasonable explanations and answers from people who are not politicians or senior managers but happen to know more about the project. I am not thrilled about the backwards step of no tables, sockets, etc, but someone who is better informed than me has answered why this has happened. An explanation is not spin.

The project remit is to increase capacity by eliminating bottlenecks thus allowing more trains through the core and using longer trains as standard. No one is pretending it will be the answer to every problem on the Thameslink network. Nor is it reasonable to do so. How can you expect an engineering project to affect industrial relations, or driver terms of employment?

You raise plenty of valid issues but they have nothing to do with Thameslink.

Some are issues of historical underinvestment or constraints imposed by government. The East Coast wiring and the scope of St Pancras were a case of it’s that or nothing on offer. And third rail problems go back decades!

Some relate to franchising. Operators usually have to pay a premium to the Treasury, and meet service and shareholder commitments. Margins are tight so they cut costs. If they can’t raise enough revenue and have to ask for subsidy the government demands cuts or strips them of the franchise. Only private companies can apply so generally it always happens this way, hence tight rostering and use of electronic systems that don’t yet cope with disruption to save money on staff and stock - the "quart into a pint pot".

It's churlish to suggest that we wouldn't need modelling tools with more resources. Any operator has a finite budget. Ditto the project stakeholders. So we can't have 12 car trains everywhere because there is no justification. Tulse Hill would need a rebuild the scale of which is permanently unaffordable. Even peak demand on the Tattenham branch is satisfied by 6 car platforms and to double their length would simply not be a responsible use of the budget.

The Wimbledon Loop not terminating at Blackfriars is due to political interference from the local MP running scared from his constituents rather than being honest about why this should happen. This is being forced on all of us.

But to return to Thameslink specifics:

The need to interface with EMT - having to make different service groups of trains work together is not specific to Thameslink. It's part and parcel of running a rail network. And the project will eliminate many bottlenecks. Even the trains presenting from the south will be on segregated track from Windmill Junction to the Canal Tunnels. Of course they'll be late sometimes. Its far from the only place on the network where this happens.

Where would you put a 12 car train now if it broke down outside Kings Cross? Or Cambridge? Tell me what Plan B is now? I don't pretend to know what it is, but I know it isn't going to be specific to class 700s. Everything you describe could happen now.

Of course the 700s will have teething problems, unless they are VERY special. But so does every fleet of new trains. There's only so much testing that can be done. At some point you have to go live. Again, it’s not specific to Thameslink!

As for talking about the standing v sitting issue with the 700s, this has been done to death. We can’t widen or double deck trains, or fit more in with the signalling we have. There are limits to lengthening trains, practical and financial. So if passenger numbers continue to rise, where can they go? On the roof? Until we have more lines or in cab signals, more standing space is it. It’s far from ideal. But again it’s a real world constraint.

I think I’m going to call it a day on this forum. I really don’t think I’m achieving anything with my contributions.

 

[jon0844]

You are doing just fine.

 

[Class377/5]

Those huge colour screens certainly need to offer good levels of Information, as the mock up alluded to, but didn't actually show properly.

Has anyone here who has been on the real thing got any info about the screens, and if they're actually operational during the testing?

The info screens are not part of the train set up but will be feed info from elsewhere. The person incharge has posted on this very forum and is very passionate about getting it right.

Currently not operational during test as a result but having seen real mock ups, I think it'll be massive step up.

 

[deltic08]

It is real railway men that keeps this Forum interesting for the amateur.

gtr driver please reconsider.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think I’m going to call it a day on this forum. I really don’t think I’m achieving anything with my contributions.

Please don't.

I know it's frustrating when you explain repeatedly about things and it is completely ignored or goes right over people's heads. I've had much the same thing about the Great Western electrification project through Goring Gap.

Stick with it, eventually people understand why things are being done the way they're being done, or why things can't be done the way passengers want them to be done.

 

[bramling]

Please don't.

I know it's frustrating when you explain repeatedly about things and it is completely ignored or goes right over people's heads. I've had much the same thing about the Great Western electrification project through Goring Gap.

Stick with it, eventually people understand why things are being done the way they're being done, or why things can't be done the way passengers want them to be done.

I don't see why anyone should feel the need to go off in a hissy-fit just because alternative viewpoints are being expressed. The whole point of a discussion is for those viewpoints to be raised. I am quite ready to consider any viewpoint raised on here, whether well evidenced or not - however that doesn't mean one has to agree.

For what it's worth I hold a senior position in the industry, as well as using one of the routes in question on an almost-daily basis for the last 30 years, so I do have some idea what the issues are.

I am fully ready to accept that the class 700 is a compromise, that's the only real consensus one can take from this thread. It seems from the differences in opinion that the design is a compromise too far. It may well suit the 20-min short hop like Hatfield or St Albans to London, but it doesn't suit a journey from further out so well. Despite various viewpoints expressed, I am yet to be convinced of the reasons given for why something better could not be provided. If the issue is loading times then reduce the core service, if it's about maximising future capacity then why will we still have 8-car services? No one has yet convincingly addressed these and other issues.

Just because the combination of the politicians and the industry have chosen to deal with a given situation in a particular way does not automatically mean that solution is the right and/or optimal solution, which is the impression I get from certain posters on this thread.

 

[67018]

Please don't.

I know it's frustrating when you explain repeatedly about things and it is completely ignored or goes right over people's heads. I've had much the same thing about the Great Western electrification project through Goring Gap.

Stick with it, eventually people understand why things are being done the way they're being done, or why things can't be done the way passengers want them to be done.

Seconded. Please bear in mind that, for every responder who repeats the same arguments ad nauseam, there are many of us who appreciate the efforts people make to explain the thinking behind the various design decisions.

I still haven't seen any suggestion of what the alternative could be that doesn't just shift the inconveniences and compromises from one group to another, and even if there was it's purely hypothetical since it's a done deal now.

 

[AM9]

I am fully ready to accept that the class 700 is a compromise, that's the only real consensus one can take from this thread. It seems from the differences in opinion that the design is a compromise too far. It may well suit the 20-min short hop like Hatfield or St Albans to London, but it doesn't suit a journey from further out so well.

Not everbody leaving St Albans just does the 20 mins into STP. Many go beyond there to Farringdon, City Thameslink and Blackfriars taking over 30 mins.. Given the exhortations of a few here that the St Albans passengers shouldn't be on the fasts and should get the slows, that would make their journeys around 45 minutes, only 10 minutes less than a fast Cambridge to KGX. So the compromises you mention can and will affect everybody.

Despite various viewpoints expressed, I am yet to be convinced of the reasons given for why something better could not be provided. If the issue is loading times then reduce the core service, if it's about maximising future capacity then why will we still have 8-car services? No one has yet convincingly addressed these and other issues.

The capacity improvements are with the notable exception of the approaches to London Bridge, largely completed. The investment in trains with greater capacity is for the time being, complete. So putting some in storage so that headways could be increased would be a gift to the Daily Mail that most here would agree is a farce. As has been said before, the design is optimised to increase capacity particularly when things go awry in the core, so anything done to the trains that impacts on that would affect recovery of the timetable that you and others are saying will be needed so frequently.
Posters here have said that the GN services 'always'/'usually' have spare seats so the additionally capacity is not needed now. I assume that such facts would be known to the planners so the running of 8-car trains still gives the required capacity. Nobody here has mentioned whether the maximum expected demand on the GN routes exceeds the gross capacity of these partially 8-car services, but if (and when) they do look like surpassing the line's capacity, the budget for increasing the length of trains to 12-cars should become available, although I am fully aware that the Thameslink Programme, like Crossrail has taken over 20 years to come to fruition. As that would inevitably involve some very expensive remodelling of difficult stations, I expect it to take its place in the queue.

Just because the combination of the politicians and the industry have chosen to deal with a given situation in a particular way does not automatically mean that solution is the right and/or optimal solution, which is the impression I get from certain posters on this thread.

That's perfectly true, and I don't detect that anybody here says that it is perfect. As far as optimal goes though, you omitted to mention the biggest factor which is cost/available budget. If Thameslink did get everything necessary to satisfy all its passengers' reasonable wishes, it would probably have prevented Crossrail and/or GWML electrification from proceeding for the next 20 years. If I was being selfish, I might say yes and why not, but then some needy causes elsewhere are probably already taking a hit to allow the current £6.5BN improvements to take place on Thameslink.

The posts in this thread have mainly been about issues north of London. Thameslink programme is not just about that area. Over the last 25 years, trains running through the core have made a great contribution to capacity increases south of the Thames and its services are now embedded in travel patterns in Kent, Sussex and Surrey. The Thameslink programme augments the already overloaded terminii that serve this area, part of the largest commuting region in the UK, so not all the benefits will be felt in Herts., Beds., and Cambs., so there is a bit of sharing to be accepted.

 

[fusionblue]

The posts in this thread have mainly been about issues north of London. Thameslink programme is not just about that area. Over the last 25 years, trains running through the core have made a great contribution to capacity increases south of the Thames and its services are now embedded in travel patterns in Kent, Sussex and Surrey.

Speaking as someone from south of the thames, i've often said that Thameslink forgets that it even travels to sevenoaks or around the loop. All of the investment has been directed towards brighton (and that direction) while the other two branches get nothing - yet still get told its an improvement.

In SET land, going from an 8-car networker to a 10-car 376 is an improvement. Going from a TL 8-car 319 to a 8-car 700 isn't (or if it is, it isn't in the ways that people expect given what the marketing preaches).. ideally the project should have improved what was running already by frequency/capacity rather than pile more into the core and then expand outwards rather than how it is now.

 

[jon0844]

Posters here have said that the GN services 'always'/'usually' have spare seats so the additionally capacity is not needed now. I assume that such facts would be known to the planners so the running of 8-car trains still gives the required capacity. Nobody here has mentioned whether the maximum expected demand on the GN routes exceeds the gross capacity of these partially 8-car services, but if (and when) they do look like surpassing the line's capacity, the budget for increasing the length of trains to 12-cars should become available, although I am fully aware that the Thameslink Programme, like Crossrail has taken over 20 years to come to fruition. As that would inevitably involve some very expensive remodelling
of difficult stations, I expect it to take its place in the queue.

It will be interesting to see if the open gangways make a big difference to how people who currently board a train at King's Cross and pack in on the first 2-3 carriages of an 8 car train (thus leaving many seats and loads of standing room at the country end). Will they walk through and spread out more evenly?

If they do, I'd expect that more people would be seated than now. It's really staggering that people are willing to squeeze up in vestibules of two or three carriages all the way to Hatfield or Welwyn Garden City.

Now I get that some people have no choice but to board there, as they were running late and had to get on as quickly as possible, but not everyone is boarding when the whistle is being blown.

 

[Sunset route]

Speaking as someone from south of the thames, i've often said that Thameslink forgets that it even travels to sevenoaks or around the loop. All of the investment has been directed towards brighton (and that direction) while the other two branches get nothing - yet still get told its an improvement.

I like to know what improvements the Brighton Main Line has received, because since the line was resignalled in 1984 we had to wait until 2014 for the next improvement, which was platform 7 at Gatwick Airport and even that came at a cost of less flexible signalling.

Then in 2015 full bi-directional signalling was commissioned between Balcombe Tunnel Jcn and Copyhold Jcn for use in times of perturbation with a reduced capacity of 6 trains per direction in flights of three.

It might look liked there has been investment on the Brighton Main Line just because the Thameslink Project have put in two new sidings plus a carriage washer at Brighton and have built their fancy new depot at Three Bridges alongside TBROC which is slowly taking over London Bridges area of control alongside elements of VASC & WHPSB areas that are part of the Thameslink works. I know that the East Sussex Coastway is also controlled by the ROC but that's not the BML. The first bit of the BML to be controlled by the ROC will be the Streatham area over the Easter period, but that is essentially just a recontrol and not an enhancement.

Oops I nearly forgot, the ELL project paid for the crossover at South Croydon plus altering an auto signal to a controlled signal to allow trains to turn around there.

 

[AM9]

I like to know what improvements the Brighton Main Line has received, because since the line was resignalled in 1984 we had to wait until 2014 for the next improvement, which was platform 7 at Gatwick Airport and even that came at a cost of less flexible signalling.

Then in 2015 full bi-directional signalling was commissioned between Balcombe Tunnel Jcn and Copyhold Jcn for use in times of perturbation with a reduced capacity of 6 trains per direction in flights of three.

It might look liked there has been investment on the Brighton Main Line just because the Thameslink Project have put in two new sidings plus a carriage washer at Brighton and have built their fancy new depot at Three Bridges alongside TBROC which is slowly taking over London Bridges area of control alongside elements of VASC & WHPSB areas that are part of the Thameslink works. I know that the East Sussex Coastway is also controlled by the ROC but that's not the BML. The first bit of the BML to be controlled by the ROC will be the Streatham area over the Easter period, but that is essentially just a recontrol and not an enhancement.

Oops I nearly forgot, the ELL project paid for the crossover at South Croydon plus altering an auto signal to a controlled signal to allow trains to turn around there.

Don't forget London Bridge. I'm not sure that a complete rebuild would have happened this side of 2030 had the Thameslink Programme not mandated the doubling of the two tracks that link Blackfriars/Charing Cross to the rest of the UK. Of course we wait to see just how good the improvement is but it can't be any worse than the bad old days of 10-15 minutes crawling along in a queue to squeeze across the bridge over the market below.

 

[Minstral25]

The project remit is to increase capacity by eliminating bottlenecks thus allowing more trains through the core and using longer trains as standard. No one is pretending it will be the answer to every problem on the Thameslink network. Nor is it reasonable to do so. How can you expect an engineering project to affect industrial relations, or driver terms of employment?

You raise plenty of valid issues but they have nothing to do with Thameslink.

Some are issues of historical underinvestment or constraints imposed by government. The East Coast wiring and the scope of St Pancras were a case of it’s that or nothing on offer. And third rail problems go back decades!

Some relate to franchising. Operators usually have to pay a premium to the Treasury, and meet service and shareholder commitments. Margins are tight so they cut costs. If they can’t raise enough revenue and have to ask for subsidy the government demands cuts or strips them of the franchise. Only private companies can apply so generally it always happens this way, hence tight rostering and use of electronic systems that don’t yet cope with disruption to save money on staff and stock - the "quart into a pint pot".

I think this is a fundamental problem with Franchising (or the Management contract GTR have) - the point is to get best value for the "taxpayer" but the reality is there needs to be some slack in the system. By slack I mean spare stock, rescue sidings and extra reserve staff able to take over trains

The lack of slack means that the service will fall apart at the slightest problem. This means nightmares for passengers, massive delays and ruining their lives with stress. This is though not the fault of the Railwaymen but the system they are forced by the Government to work under.

This needs to change and slack built in

As for talking about the standing v sitting issue with the 700s, this has been done to death. We can’t widen or double deck trains, or fit more in with the signalling we have. There are limits to lengthening trains, practical and financial. So if passenger numbers continue to rise, where can they go? On the roof? Until we have more lines or in cab signals, more standing space is it. It’s far from ideal. But again it’s a real world constraint.

It is massively far from ideal. I have sat on the mock up and these trains will be a nightmare for me. I know I am not average but as I have said before half the population is larger than average by definition. I simply will not fit into a single seat.

I'll also miss the ability to work on the way to work - I cannot do what I do on a small tablet or phone - I need a full laptop.

I think I’m going to call it a day on this forum. I really don’t think I’m achieving anything with my contributions.

I genuinely hope not. Everyone's view adds something and is interesting. I don't comment often but enjoy the interplay of viewpoints including yours.

 

[AM9]

Speaking as someone from south of the thames, i've often said that Thameslink forgets that it even travels to sevenoaks or around the loop. All of the investment has been directed towards brighton (and that direction) while the other two branches get nothing - yet still get told its an improvement.

The loop, or a certain vote-watching MP is the main reason that the total capacity of the core is compromised by having to run more 8-car trains than was originally planned. This has ramifications across the Thameslink network.

In SET land, going from an 8-car networker to a 10-car 376 is an improvement. Going from a TL 8-car 319 to a 8-car 700 isn't (or if it is, it isn't in the ways that people expect given what the marketing preaches).. ideally the project should have improved what was running already by frequency/capacity rather than pile more into the core and then expand outwards rather than how it is now.

The answer is the same for Thameslink services in Kent as elsewhere, there isn't (or won't be) capacity in the London Terminals to turn conventional trains around. In the case of the Sevenoaks line, that means Blackfriars. Passengers for whom the interior of trains is a big issue and wanting to travel into central London could maybe choose from the many more other trains going to Charing Cross or Cannon St., which would have different seating arrangements. A fact of the Thameslink programme is that any train occupying a core path must be of suitable design in order to maintain the standard dwell times (in other words, a Class 700).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think this is a fundamental problem with Franchising (or the Management contract GTR have) - the point is to get best value for the "taxpayer" but the reality is there needs to be some slack in the system. By slack I mean spare stock, rescue sidings and extra reserve staff able to take over trains

The lack of slack means that the service will fall apart at the slightest problem. This means nightmares for passengers, massive delays and ruining their lives with stress. This is though not the fault of the Railwaymen but the system they are forced by the Government to work under.

This needs to change and slack built in

The trains and the infrastructure do have slack designed in. Class377/5 and others have explained that the core line and the stock being delivered exclusively for it are designed to:

- have dwell times of less than 30 seconds
- be able to push or pull a train forward or backwards to clear the running tracks in the core. Note that this not a mean feat for an 8-car train to propel a dead 12-car train up gradients as steep as 1:29!
- the entire core OLE has been equipped with a fixed condictor rail, minimising the incidence of failure compared with conventional wiring
- the section between Farringdon and City Thameslink is (already) dual powered so that a train failing any one power collection mode is recoverable to sidings or the other powered track
- the signalling system will be fully automatic with full manual override when needed​

Given the already high cost of the Thameslink programme and the prohibitive costs of the next level of designed-in slack, e.g. additional tracks through the core or larger subterranean stations, the steps listed above would seem to be about as much as can be reasonably expected, and probably make the core modifications the most carefully engineered piece of railway risk reduction in the UK.

 

[urpert]

Speaking as someone from south of the thames, i've often said that Thameslink forgets that it even travels to sevenoaks or around the loop. All of the investment has been directed towards brighton (and that direction) while the other two branches get nothing - yet still get told its an improvement.

In SET land, going from an 8-car networker to a 10-car 376 is an improvement. Going from a TL 8-car 319 to a 8-car 700 isn't (or if it is, it isn't in the ways that people expect given what the marketing preaches).. ideally the project should have improved what was running already by frequency/capacity rather than pile more into the core and then expand outwards rather than how it is now.

I couldn't agree more. After all the back and forth over timetabling it's frankly embarrassing that the Catford loop is STILL only going to have a 2tph service (one of the last in the TfL zones which does).

 

[bramling]

The loop, or a certain vote-watching MP is the main reason that the total capacity of the core is compromised by having to run more 8-car trains than was originally planned. This has ramifications across the Thameslink network.



The answer is the same for Thameslink services in Kent as elsewhere, there isn't (or won't be) capacity in the London Terminals to turn conventional trains around. In the case of the Sevenoaks line, that means Blackfriars. Passengers for whom the interior of trains is a big issue and wanting to travel into central London could maybe choose from the many more other trains going to Charing Cross or Cannon St., which would have different seating arrangements. A fact of the Thameslink programme is that any train occupying a core path must be of suitable design in order to maintain the standard dwell times (in other words, a Class 700).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The trains and the infrastructure do have slack designed in. Class377/5 and other
s have explained that the core line and the stock being delivered exclusively for it are designed to:

- have dwell times of less than 30 seconds
- be able to push or pull a train forward or backwards to clear the running tracks in the core. Note that this not a mean feat for an 8-car train to propel a dead 12-car train up gradients as steep as 1:29!
- the entire core OLE has been equipped with a fixed condictor rail, minimising the incidence of failure compared with conventional wiring
- the section between Farringdon and City Thameslink is (already) dual powered so that a train failing any one power collection mode is recoverable to sidings or the other powered track
- the signalling system will be fully automatic with full manual override when needed​

Given the already high cost of the Thameslink programme and the prohibitive costs of the next level of designed-in slack, e.g. additional tracks through the core or larger subterranean stations, the steps listed above would seem to be about as much as can be reasonably expected, and probably make the core modifications the most carefully engineered piece of railway risk reduction in the UK.

I get the point about termini eventually running out of turning capacity, and I understand that the core is a way of dealing with this - although somewhere like King's Cross could be worked more intensively than today if necessary, things can't be that tight if they are able to schedule a 40-minute turnround for one GN service between 1800 and 1845! I'm sure more trains could be fitted in, especially if splitting/joining were able to be eliminated and all trains were a uniform fleet - unlike today where it can't be optimally efficient to have three different non-compatible classes.

Notwithstanding the above, today's terminal capacity at King's Cross (and elsewhere) won't disappear overnight the day Thameslink Programme launches. If Thameslink was superimposed over an overhauled Great Northern service, this would be the win-win scenario. I suspect this is what may end up happening, after some problems along the way, as no matter how much I try to think about it with an optimistic outlook I just can not see the proposed timetable and service pattern working. There are just too many conflict opportunities, minutes here and there are going to add up and result in paths clashing all over the expanded network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seconded. Please bear in mind that, for every responder who repeats the same arguments ad nauseam, there are many of us who appreciate the efforts people make to explain the thinking behind the various design decisions.

I still haven't seen any suggestion of what the alternative could be that doesn't just shift the inconveniences and compromises from one group to another, and even if there was it's purely hypothetical since it's a done deal now.

Since when has a timetable and service pattern, which is one component of the issue being discussed, ever been a done deal? Even if the first Thameslink timetable were already set in stone, nothing prevents something different being developed in the future.

If anything the timetable and service pattern is (even) more important to get right than the trains. "It will work" is not much reassurance, these performance risks are not some hypothetical fantasy about what could happen in the future, they happen today already, and have always been a feature of the Great Northern. Virtually nothing is being done to the infrastructure, so give or take perhaps a small benefit from (unproven) regulation software and a couple of other tweaks which have been mentioned, these issues *will* continue to occur, they're not going to stop overnight in 2018. The difference will be that the effects will be magnified and spread far wider than today where the effects are more contained. I *want* it all to work, as I'd prefer to continue using the train, although I'm fortunate that I have the option to drive without incurring extra journey time. The fact that I want it to work is why it's important this is got right, as things stand at the moment that point is far from having been reached.

It was concerning to read in an earlier thread someone describe the GN as "simple". It may look simple on the map with one main line and a branch, however the mix of services and calling patterns, combined with a number of different track constraints, is anything but simple to keep running right-time. No wonder there are concerns.

 

[Bald Rick]

- the entire core OLE has been equipped with a fixed condictor rail, minimising the incidence of failure compared with conventional wiring

Not quite. The conductor bar is from just north of St Pancras to the old Kings cross Thameslink station; plus the new Canal Tunnels.