Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[The Box Photter]

Please keep posting GTR Driver. I will be happy to report on my first experience of riding on a Class 700 "in anger".

If the journey is on time, offers me a seat and provides a restful ambiance, I'll be the first on this forum to declare my Damascene conversion. I'm really not bothered about Wi-Fi, power sockets or that the windows and seats might not line up.

I am bothered about the prospects of having to stand for an hour BEFORE I complete the other half-hour of my journey to work once I get off at Blackfriars.

I am bothered about thin, uncomfortable seats with a restrictive amount of leg room.

I am bothered about being unable to sit on the gangway side seat if some heffalump is occupying the window seat.

I am bothered about the possibility of being crushed by that same heffalump if the roles are reversed.

I am concerned at the willingness of those in much more expensive suits than I can afford, to place so much reliance on the innovative technology installed in the trains, ATO and signalling systems. Anecdotal study indicates that nothing on rail ever works first time straight out of the box. Just look at the fiasco of the door release problems on the 377s and 387s in the sub-surface stations. Even now that problem still happens. I realise that the Class 700s will be able to tap into a different set of "black boxes" that will tell the train its safe to release the doors, but if that doesn't work, how to you accommodate a 30 second dwell time? What is the manual work-around and wouldn't it have been better to use a manual system in the first place?

But what I am most bothered about is the over-complicated destination aspirations of Thameslink and their potential for severe disruption to my journey.

 

[Bald Rick]

Notwithstanding the above, today's terminal capacity at King's Cross (and elsewhere) won't disappear overnight the day Thameslink Programme launches.

Not overnight, but pretty soon thereafter. The 2019 ECML timetable proposes 8 long distance paths per hour. Add in the Cambridge expresses and the peak only services and that's your lot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just look at the fiasco of the door release problems on the 377s and 387s in the sub-surface stations. Even now that problem still happens. I realise that the Class 700s will be able to tap into a different set of "black boxes" that will tell the train its safe to release the doors, but if that doesn't work, how to you accommodate a 30 second dwell time?

If it doesn't work, the train won't be going anywhere quickly, as the balises that the train detects to open the doors are exactly the same balises that tell the train where it is for the signalling system. No balise detection, no ETCS, no ATO, so the service will be disrupted anyway.

Meanwhile the ETCS testing in the core is going very well (2 years before it is needed) and the balises are working just fine.

 

[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 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.

That's all lovely that the core, rightly, has these reliability initiatives built in. However the core has never really been the sole concern - although of course a it's still a massive risk that a shutdown in the core will potentially disrupt so much railway. The measures above will not help avoid a problem elsewhere, somewhere in the 50 or so miles coming north from Brighton or wherever. Nor will they help get a late-running train back on time.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

Hang in there Driver. I've resigned at lest twice. But the need to help people understand takes over.

For every member who isn't listening, there's 10 members who are, and a hundred non members who just read the forum without commenting.

 

[bramling]

Not overnight, but pretty soon thereafter. The 2019 ECML timetable proposes 8 long distance paths per hour. Add in the Cambridge expresses and the peak only services and that's your lot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.

That issue is easy to resolve.

It's simply not acceptable to screw up the reliability of the heavily used outer-suburban commuter service to create new long-distance paths.

 

[Bald Rick]

The measures above will not help avoid a problem elsewhere, somewhere in the 50 or so miles coming north from Brighton or wherever. Nor will they help get a late-running train back on time.

I don't think anyone has said that joining up two railways on either side of London will make everything sweetness and light. Of course there will be times when delays in one side affect the other. In the same way that issues in the core will also affect services anywhere (did anyone mention the train failure in the core at the start of tonight's evening peak?).

Exactly these arguments were being made 30 years ago when the original incarnation of Thameslink was devised. There was much comment in the original rail Forum - the letters page of Modern Railways - on the subject.

But the point is, the benefit of the cross London railway far outweighs the occasional (and it is occasional) transfer of delays from one side of the city to another. I can't think of many of my St Albans chums who would happily go back to a service to St Pancras / Moorgate. No doubt some would, but what Thamselink has done for many of them, me included, is to take jobs in parts of London we wouldn't have considered without it. It has also allowed me to do things like catch a train to Gatwick directly for holidays and business, take the family on day trips to the South Coast, and get to certain parts of London directly without using the tube, which for one member of my close family is a particular issue. None of this would have happened without the direct cross-London connectivity Thameslink offers, without it we would have used the car, or more likely not travelled at all.

Now some people will say 'yes that's all very well but I just want to get to Kings Cross'. Fair enough. But the transport origin / destination models show that very many more want to get within and across London, and experience from the original Thameslink shows us that it will be very popular. These same models also show that at current rates of growth, the Northern, Victoria and sub surface lines at KX/STP will have to close for entries at peak times before the middle of the next decade. Thameslink prevents that.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's simply not acceptable to screw up the reliability of the heavily used outer-suburban commuter service to create new long-distance paths.

Ok. What level of reduced reliability is 'screwed up'?

And what level of reduced reliability IS acceptable to create new long distance paths? (Given that any new path without new infrastructure reduces reliability, and the railway has been doing it for nearly 200 years).

 

[neilm]

Hang in there Driver. I've resigned at lest twice. But the need to help people understand takes over.

For every member who isn't listening, there's 10 members who are, and a hundred non members who just read the forum without commenting.

Yep apologies I am one, I love reading what is on here. I am a commuter so it is nice see to both sides in a debate, no one should take it personally what is said or mentioned I just hope they see it from our point of you that we have an interest in trains and our commute which takes up a significant part of our wages and time.

I appreciate everyone on here who takes the time to reply.

 

[petersi]

Coming back to the class 700. They may well be the best design for the problem they are designed to solve.

In looking and comparing thameslink to cross rail it may well have been better to design thameslink around metro services. but that is not going to happen

from this thread the people implementing Thameslink are doing the best they can with what they have been asked to implement.

 

[southern442]

In looking and comparing thameslink to cross rail it may well have been better to design thameslink around metro services. but that is not going to happen

It is exactly what has happened...

 

[absolutelymilk]

Hang in there Driver. I've resigned at lest twice. But the need to help people understand takes over.

For every member who isn't listening, there's 10 members who are, and a hundred non members who just read the forum without commenting.

Indeed, as one of those who rarely posts, it is very interesting reading all the thoughts as to why the railway works the way it does, especially from those in the industry. Keep it up!

 

[petersi]

How's is Brighton, Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough metro service surely they are medium distance commuter.

 

[whoosh]

How's is Brighton, Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough metro service surely they are medium distance commuter.

They are. But the observation seems to be the trains are metro-like!

 

[southern442]

How's is Brighton, Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough metro service surely they are medium distance commuter.

Sorry - I misread your post. I thought you were talking about the Thameslink trains and the Thameslink programme being designed around the metro service, you were talking about the actual route. In this case, I agree with you. Bedford, Brighton, Cambridge and Peterborough are definitely not metro, the latter two could even count as intercity at a push. Which is why I think that the design for these trains is not a fair balance between the two types of Thameslink service being offered. Maybe two different interiors for the different sub-classes should have been thought about?


As for gtrdriver-definitely keep posting. We haven't seen eye to eye in a lot of these debates, but I think that your contributions have been very far from useless. Even if you didn't work in the railway industry your arguments would still be very valid and key to the discussions going on here.

 

[bramling]

How's is Brighton, Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough metro service surely they are medium distance commuter.

I think the point is they are being given a metro type of train which is not really suitable for what you rightly describe as medium-distance.

Of course, what some of these destinations are *not* getting is a metro frequency. Take Knebworth as an example, today's off-peak frequency is 2tph with platforms capable of taking 8-car trains. Thameslink Programme proposed off-peak frequency, 2tph, platforms remain 8-car.

 

[D365]

Commuting from Cambridgeshire is a bit more than "medium-distance"; not quite 'long' but with semi-fast trains that take up to 1 hour...

 

[hwl]

Commuting from Cambridgeshire is a bit more than "medium-distance"; not quite 'long' but with semi-fast trains that take up to 1 hour...

No I'd call that medium! I use to commute from London to North Yorkshire a few days a week...

I also used to do a weekly commute to Moscow now that really was long


GTR Driver - keep posting!

 

[AM9]

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

OK, I stand corrected. I'm sure that if the robustness of the conventional wiring in the core is proven inadequate, it will be brought up to standard pretty quick. In fact that is probably true for any significant maintenance issues.
No doubt somebody will suggest that it would be just to protect the person who made the wrong decision in the first place!

 

[bramling]

Ok. What level of reduced reliability is 'screwed up'?

And what level of reduced reliability IS acceptable to create new long distance paths? (Given that any new path without new infrastructure reduces reliability, and the railway has been doing it for nearly 200 years).

For the first, we shall have to wait til 2018 to see for sure. Based on experience I have visions of trains losing minutes here and there, then multiplying each time the delayed path clashes with something else.

As to the second question, basically near to none. Since the 1990s journey times and performance has tended to deteriorate, a journey which was timetabled to take 29 minutes in the late 90s already now takes 32. We already see more signal checks due to clashes with long-distance trains, particularly in the up direction. (It's less of an issue in the down direction because everything tends to be right-time leaving King's Cross - funny how we get back to that again!). My regular afternoon train when I take it often gets checked at Woolmer Green to make way for a Newark service, a new service, whilst another regular train I get often gets held beyond time at either Marshmoor or Potters Bar waiting to be turned out, waiting for a Grand Central service. More frustratingly both these trains nearly always can be seen to be only about 25% loaded when passing. Back in the 1990s my memory is more trains tended to use the fast lines south of Hitchin (I don't know if this was booked or on the signaller's initiative), and signal checks at Woolmer Green were far less common than today. I realise there are reasons for all this, the extra trains the route now carries, but there does come a point where enough is enough. Needless to say this point is a value judgment so there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer.

 

[AM9]

For the first, we shall have to wait til 2018 to see for sure. Based on experience I have visions of trains losing minutes here and there, then multiplying each time the delayed path clashes with something else.

As to the second question, basically near to none. Since the 1990s journey times and performance has tended to deteriorate, a journey which was timetabled to take 29 minutes in the late 90s already now takes 32. We already see more signal checks due to clashes with long-distance trains, particularly in the up direction. (It's less of an issue in the down direction because everything tends to be right-time leaving King's Cross - funny how we get back to that again!). My regular afternoon train when I take it often gets checked at Woolmer Green to make way for a Newark service, a new service, whilst another regular train I get often gets held beyond time at either Marshmoor or Potters Bar waiting to be turned out, waiting for a Grand Central service. More frustratingly both these trains nearly always can be seen to be only about 25% loaded when passing. Back in the 1990s my memory is more trains tended to use the fast lines south of Hitchin (I don't know if this was booked or on the signaller's initiative), and signal checks at Woolmer Green were far less common than today. I realise there are reasons for all this, the extra trains the route now carries, but there does come a point where enough is enough. Needless to say this point is a value judgment so there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer.

So it seems that the time taken on journeys from London to Herts/Cambs/Beds dormitory towns is taking longer than it did over 20 years ago. Strangely enough, that's exactly what has happened on the A1M, the M1 and the M11 over the same period. I wonder if there is a common cause here?

 

[bramling]

So it seems that the time taken on journeys from London to Herts/Cambs/Beds dormitory towns is taking longer than it did over 20 years ago. Strangely enough, that's exactly what has happened on the A1M, the M1 and the M11 over the same period. I wonder if there is a common cause here?

Yes very much so. Of course we all know the elephant in the room is population growth, which has been inadequately controlled and managed. As posted earlier, at least the present government seems to be making some form of genuine attempt to grow other parts of the country.

Reality is that it's much easier to build houses, widen motorways and lengthen 2-car trains outside the London / SE area.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

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.

Blame the stupid policy of the down trains stopping at the furthest point of the country end of Hatfield station for that! It's a fair walk from the rear-most carriage to the footbridge, at Hatfield. The walk from the front carriage is long enough to potentially be the difference between making a bus connection, and missing it !!! Likewise, irregular travelers boarding a 4-car set at Finsbury Park seem unprepared for how far along platform 7 the train now stops. The rearmost carriage is now almost beyond the stairs up from the tube access area !

These two factors, combined, make it easy for me to get a seat all the way to WGC, in the front carriage when changing at Finsbury Park

 

[jon0844]

I love it now the stop board has changed at FPK!

 

[bramling]

Blame the stupid policy of the down trains stopping at the furthest point of the country end of Hatfield station for that! It's a fair walk from the rear-most carriage to the footbridge, at Hatfield. The walk from the front carriage is long enough to potentially be the difference between making a bus connection, and missing it !!! Likewise, irregular travelers boarding a 4-car set at Finsbury Park seem unprepared for how far along platform 7 the train now stops. The rearmost carriage is now almost beyond the stairs up from the tube access area !

These two factors, combined, make it easy for me to get a seat all the way to WGC, in the front carriage when changing at Finsbury Park

The Hatfield situation is unsatisfactory, although there are sound safety reasons why it's been done, as at Knebworth.

I've always wondered if a narrow catwalk with 'do not alight here' signs could be provided to mitigate, not sure if this has ever been considered.

 

[Sunset route]

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.

But none of that is Brighton Main Line ie London Vicoria to Brighton. Windmill Bridge/Cottage Junctions to London Bridge is the most impotent branch line to the BML and will have the greatest effect on the infrastructure post Thameslink 2018 timetable change.

We are taking bets at work that as soon as the very first disruption hits the BML/Thameslink core, with all these 12 car class 700s sitting idle and blocking platforms at Brighton with no where to go. How long will it be before plans are dusted off to reinstate platform 9 at Brighton just so the East Coastway services can run while Brighton turns into a car park? It's alright having all these fixed 12 car 700s but there is no where to lose them in times of perturbation so you can run other services.

 

[Bald Rick]

But none of that is Brighton Main Line ie London Vicoria to Brighton. Windmill Bridge/Cottage Junctions to London Bridge is the most impotent branch line to the BML and will have the greatest effect on the infrastructure post Thameslink 2018 timetable change.

We are taking bets at work that as soon as the very first disruption hits the BML/Thameslink core, with all these 12 car class 700s sitting idle and blocking platforms at Brighton with no where to go. How long will it be before plans are dusted off to reinstate platform 9 at Brighton just so the East Coastway services can run while Brighton turns into a car park? It's alright having all these fixed 12 car 700s but there is no where to lose them in times of perturbation so you can run other services.

Strictly speaking, from 2018 London Bridge is restored as the main line, and Victoria becomes the branch. And there are plenty of places to lose a 12 car 700 at Brighton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Hatfield situation is unsatisfactory, although there are sound safety reasons why it's been done, as at Knebworth.

Happily, the new 700s and the new Moorgate line trains all have onboard cameras so can stop where they like in the platforms. Albeit the 700s will fill the platform!

 

[Sunset route]

Strictly speaking, from 2018 London Bridge is restored as the main line, and Victoria becomes the branch. And there are plenty of places to lose a 12 car 700 at Brighton.

Not from the operators point of view, of the pushy button thingies on the green panel thingy, there is not! We get quite used to the three way Mexicans between Main line awaiting a platform, platforms full and lovers not excepting and that's when you can platform share 4 & 8 cars, now add 12 car class 700s fixed formations into the mix and space is going to be at a premium when things go wrong. As I said we are taking bets at work on when platform 9 bring brought back into use.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I said we are taking bets at work on when platform 9 bring brought back into use.

I'll have my mortgage on 'Never'. What are the odds?

 

[neilm]

I'll have my mortgage on 'Never'. What are the odds?

What about reinstating the old down platform at Preston park?

I know there will no increase in number of trains but if they are all 12 cars you will not be able stack them in the platforms like at the moment for Thameslink

 

[Bald Rick]

What about reinstating the old down platform at Preston park?

Slightly shorter odds, I fancy.

 

[neilm]

Slightly shorter odds, I fancy.

Although something makes more sense is why want to install the new set of points at the north end of Haywards heath so they can turn back from platforms 2 and 3? As part of CP6?