Thameslink - how naive can I be?

[Horizon22]

At weekends, Cannon Street traffic really doesn't need all three platforms, and can easily just use Platforms 1 and 2 or 1 and 3.

Its only in the peaks that this would cause a problem.

True but one additional platform only gives you maybe 3-5 trains worth of extra capacity per hour, and is probably on the low side of that if you have longer turnarounds. It could be an option for the Rainham services, if they can be stepped up approriately.

 

[Mikey C]

A lot of the cancellations are due to PLANNED work at weekends, so redirecting the Rainham to say Cannon Street should surely be what happens, rather than just dumping the service completely because of engineering work in Luton or West Hampstead.

 

[Edsmith]

A lot of the cancellations are due to PLANNED work at weekends, so redirecting the Rainham to say Cannon Street should surely be what happens, rather than just dumping the service completely because of engineering work in Luton or West Hampstead.

That would seem the obvious solution or just terminate it at London Bridge when other services to and from Cannon Street only need two platforms?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2022 ==

There seem to be frequent staff shortages at London Bridge that take platform 1 out of use, so that's another barrier to contend with.

Is it due to short shortages or is it just that platform 1 isn't needed most of the time?

 

[cactustwirly]

Crossrail is much simpler than Thameslink. In effect, Crossrail is basically the Merseyrail Northern Line in purple with higher capacity, and that runs extremely punctually.

Thameslink has a lot of knock-on that Crossrail doesn't, and that's why it never really works properly. Linking on all the extra stuff instead of it remaining a simple Bedford-Brighton and Sutton service was almost another Ordsall Chord in terms of being a bad plan with predictable results.

What part of the northern line shares 30 miles of track with freight trains and other commuter services?

 

[43066]

What part of the northern line shares 30 miles of track with freight trains and other commuter services?

Isn’t Crossrail effectively going to have a monopoly on the slows on both the GEML and the GWML? In that respect it’s going to be a lot simpler than the GTR operation which isn’t as segregated, especially south of the river.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Apr 2022 ==

Is it due to short shortages or is it just that platform 1 isn't needed most of the time?

More that it wasn’t needed during the covid capacity reductions. Seems to be fully back in use now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn’t Crossrail effectively going to have a monopoly on the slows on both the GEML and the GWML? In that respect it’s going to be a lot simpler than the GTR operation which isn’t as segregated, especially south of the river.

Slows on the GEML and GWML? Electrics and Reliefs dear boy!

On the GEML, yes the Elizabeth Line will effectively be the only traffic most of the time, bar the occasional freight. On the GWML there will be a lot of freight - including heavy 3000t stone trains. Quite a risk to performance, so I should imagine that new Regulation procedures are being put in place. GWR will also have some trains on the Reliefs, particularly west of Slough, albeit there’s not so many EL trains there.

 

[Edsmith]

Isn’t Crossrail effectively going to have a monopoly on the slows on both the GEML and the GWML? In that respect it’s going to be a lot simpler than the GTR operation which isn’t as segregated, especially south of the river.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Apr 2022 ==



More that it wasn’t needed during the covid capacity reductions. Seems to be fully back in use now.

It's in use at the moment but platform 2 isn't, with 8 trains an hour to and from Cannon Street all three platforms aren't needed.

 

[43066]

Slows on the GEML and GWML? Electrics and Reliefs dear boy!

Quite right of course.

It’s interesting how these names stick. “Electrics” on the GEML seems especially odd when all the lines are electric these days (and all quite slow!)

Another interesting one relevant to Thameslink is the Chatham mainline four track section between Shortlands junction and Swanley where stopping SE and GTR services run on the fasts and vice versa (so platforms 1 and 2 at Bromley South are the up and down fast). Apparently that’s a legacy of when the track was quadrupled in the dim and distant past.

On the GEML, yes the Elizabeth Line will effectively be the only traffic most of the time, bar the occasional freight. On the GWML there will be a lot of freight - including heavy 3000t stone trains. Quite a risk to performance, so I should imagine that new Regulation procedures are being put in place. GWR will also have some trains on the Reliefs, particularly west of Slough, albeit there’s not so many EL trains there.

Thanks.

 

[Horizon22]

Slows on the GEML and GWML? Electrics and Reliefs dear boy!

On the GEML, yes the Elizabeth Line will effectively be the only traffic most of the time, bar the occasional freight. On the GWML there will be a lot of freight - including heavy 3000t stone trains. Quite a risk to performance, so I should imagine that new Regulation procedures are being put in place. GWR will also have some trains on the Reliefs, particularly west of Slough, albeit there’s not so many EL trains there.

Yes beyond Heathrow Junction on the GWML it will get quite congested really - GWR aren't dropping the 2tph Didcot-Paddington stopper, freight is running all the way until Acton etc. Any two-track railway (planned or disrupted) normally leads to a fair number of services chopped off at Reading or binned entirely.

Obviously through the central operating section of Crossrail it's fairly contained and there's not many branches to the whole operation either unlike Thameslink.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Quite right of course.

It’s interesting how these names stick. “Electrics” on the GEML seems especially odd when all the lines are electric these days (and all quite slow!)

Another interesting one relevant to Thameslink is the Chatham mainline four track section between Shortlands junction and Swanley where stopping SE and GTR services run on the fasts and vice versa (so platforms 1 and 2 at Bromley South are the up and down fast). Apparently that’s a legacy of when the track was quadrupled in the dim and distant past.



Thanks.

That's more because most of the stopping services run through to Orpington or terminate at Bromley South. You can't terminate at Bromley South on the Slow Lines and if you ran to Orpington on the Slow you have to cross the entire Chatham Mainline at Bickley Junction which would be a massive limiter on capacity and lead to poor performance. Also, means you can make use of the grade seperated Junction at Shortlands Junction on the Fasts as a lot of the stopping services run up the Catford Loop.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s interesting how these names stick. “Electrics” on the GEML seems especially odd when all the lines are electric these days (and all quite slow!)

it’s even more odd as all 4 lines were electrified at the same time in the late 40s! Presumably the Electrics saw mos5 of the electric service though, with the Mains mostly steam.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Slows on the GEML and GWML? Electrics and Reliefs dear boy!

On the GEML, yes the Elizabeth Line will effectively be the only traffic most of the time, bar the occasional freight. On the GWML there will be a lot of freight - including heavy 3000t stone trains. Quite a risk to performance, so I should imagine that new Regulation procedures are being put in place. GWR will also have some trains on the Reliefs, particularly west of Slough, albeit there’s not so many EL trains there.

So will an incident on the mains result in the GA service being hacked back to protect Crossrail?

 

[43066]

So will an incident on the mains result in the GA service being hacked back to protect Crossrail?

It’ll most likely just utterly ruin both services, such is the intensity of operation on all of the mainlines into London these days.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It’ll most likely just utterly ruin both services, such is the intensity of operation on all of the mainlines into London these days.

I would suggest peak intensity has passed on most routes post covid but your point is well made

 

[AlbertBeale]

In my commuting days I used to reckon I could walk a coach length in 10 seconds if in a hurry. Drivers should not have to hurry: walking the length of an RLU needs to be allowed least 2 minutes and walking the length of an FLU needs to be allowed least 3 minutes.

Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread - but what's an FLU? And RLU?

 

[43066]

Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread - but what's an FLU?

FLU = Full Length Unit, ie a twelve car 700. The eight cars are known as RLUs = Reduced Length Units.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The problem with the Rainham is heading towards london they can only use the high level at London bridge, its not feasible to be turning them back there as its too busy and will cause more delays, its a shame that in the redesign of blackfriars no-one in their wisdom deemed it suitable to put points in to be able to terminate in the bays there from London bridge.

Come across on the Southwark reversible signal and then take two lefts ? *edit* yes, just checked, you can get into 10 and 11 via 9 rev *edit*

Isn't the first post here bemoaning the fact that the track layout doesn't allow trains continuing from London Bridge to terminate in the bays at Blackfriars? This response seems to be talking about the very different possibility for Thameslink services from the south arriving at London Bridge being able to access the low-level terminating platforms there. The point re Blackfriars seems to me of some relevance, but hasn't been picked up on by others as yet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2022 ==

FLU = Full Length Unit, ie a twelve car 700. The eight cars are known as RLUs = Reduced Length Units.

Thanks!!

 

[ComUtoR]

Isn't the first post here bemoaning the fact that the track layout doesn't allow trains continuing from London Bridge to terminate in the bays at Blackfriars?

It's a two sentence post. The first refering to London Bridge

The problem with the Rainham is heading towards london they can only use the high level at London bridge, its not feasible to be turning them back there as its too busy and will cause more delays

Coming up from Rainham is the key here. Services from Kent side are an issue because, as mentioned, terminating at London Bridge can cause delays. Cutting across SE services could also cause delays.

I don't really have any issues with the London Bridge/Blackfriars Bays as that isn't what they were designed to do. Potentially an oversight but the design of both stations was to remove the conflicts. Anything flowing from London Bridge goes through the core and anything up from Herne Hill terminates. When terminating in the Blackfriars Bays, you simply walk across the platform to change trains.

Avoiding conflicting moves should be the goal. The diveunder and the London Bridge layout removed the conflicting moves with SE. They are pretty much protected from knock on delays now.

 

[Mikey C]

Coming up from Rainham is the key here. Services from Kent side are an issue because, as mentioned, terminating at London Bridge can cause delays. Cutting across SE services could also cause delays.

In which case room should be found at Cannon Street, which is where Greenwich trains are "meant" to go.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

In which case room should be found at Cannon Street, which is where Greenwich trains are "meant" to go.

Thameslink don't sign to Cannon Street. I doubt something like that would be signed off now, especially in this day and age of financial difficulty.

 

[Edsmith]

Thameslink don't sign to Cannon Street. I doubt something like that would be signed off now, especially in this day and age of financial difficulty.

Wouldn't it be relatively simple for Thameslink drivers to learn the short section between London Bridge and Cannon Street for emergency use?

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn't it be relatively simple for Thameslink drivers to learn the short section between London Bridge and Cannon Street for emergency use?

Learn it, yes. Maintain it, not so much.

 

[43066]

Learn it, yes. Maintain it, not so much.

Indeed. And a big investment for something they’d only use once in a blue moon.

Avoiding conflicting moves should be the goal. The diveunder and the London Bridge layout removed the conflicting moves with SE. They are pretty much protected from knock on delays now.

Quite. And weird and wonderful diversions of Rainham trains into LB low level (as it used to be known) and CST would bring back conflicts south of London Bridge, which is the opposite of what the TL project was meant to achieve. The service levels are intense enough that terminating GTRs elsewhere and asking people to change isn’t unreasonable.

 

[aleggatta]

Learn it, yes. Maintain it, not so much.

Do any SE drivers take 700s on SE land? Just wondering if that could be a potential work around, although appreciate the additional planning requirements for this

 

[Surreytraveller]

Wouldn't it be relatively simple for Thameslink drivers to learn the short section between London Bridge and Cannon Street for emergency use?

Every driver would have to be trained on it, then have that knowledge kept up to date
The platform staff at Cannon Street would have to be trained on dispatching 700s, and have that competency maintained.
A massive cost, and an administrative headache

 

[43066]

Do any SE drivers take 700s on SE land? Just wondering if that could be a potential work around, although appreciate the additional planning requirements for this

Not any more. Victoria and Orpington SE depots worked GTR services for many years, indeed Orpington learned 700s, but both lost their non SE routes/traction knowledge a few years ago now*.

In principle, even without the traction knowledge, SE drivers could route conduct GTR drivers from LB - CST. Again that would be overly complex, resource intensive and would create a performance risk, so not in keeping with the ethos of the post 2018 GTR operation.

*Albeit of course SE metro drivers now sign 707s which are very similar.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't really have any issues with the London Bridge/Blackfriars Bays as that isn't what they were designed to do. Potentially an oversight…

it absolutely wasn’t an oversight, it was very deliberate, and the subject of much discussion. But at the conclusion of the discussions, all the operators agreed it was the right thing to do.

Wouldn't it be relatively simple for Thameslink drivers to learn the short section between London Bridge and Cannon Street for emergency use?

Probably cost about £2m in driver training costs to get the competency for every TL driver who signs London Bridge. Then about half a million a year to maintain it. Not exactly the best use of taxpayers money.

 

[43066]

it absolutely wasn’t an oversight, it was very deliberate, and the subject of much discussion. But at the conclusion of the discussions, all the operators agreed it was the right thing to do.

Presumably because you could hypothetically terminate trains from London Bridge in the Blackfriars through platforms, while still using the bays for services from the Holbon lines (ie effectively operating BFR as a traditional four platform dead end terminus, albeit with segregated services)?

Given the size of the project I suppose it does seem a little odd the access to the bays from LB wasn’t included, just for maximum possible flexibility/future proofing, even if never really intended to be used operationally.

 

[zwk500]

Presumably because you could hypothetically terminate trains from London Bridge in the Blackfriars through platforms, while still using the bays for services from the Holbon lines (ie effectively operating BFR as a traditional four platform terminus, albeit with segregated services)

It does seem a little odd the access to the bays from LB wasn’t included just for maximum possible flexibility, even if never really intended to be used operationally.

I can't imagine maintenance access at Blackfriars throat is easy to get hold of, so if you never intend to use it adding 2 or 4 additional sets of S&C that could fail seems to be a little self-defeating.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

it absolutely wasn’t an oversight, it was very deliberate, and the subject of much discussion. But at the conclusion of the discussions, all the operators agreed it was the right thing to do.



Probably cost about £2m in driver training costs to get the competency for every TL driver who signs London Bridge. Then about half a million a year to maintain it. Not exactly the best use of taxpayers money.

That quite a sum and obviously its not good use of taxpayers money but one has to question with drivers having the level of training and competence they have to gain a licence whether there is case for a route knowledge "lite" for low speed sections where every signal is equipped with TPWS. ie round to Cannon Street.