Thameslink, once complete...

[BRX]

London Bridge isn't on the Sutton loop though...

 

[Crispy75]

Great, just as I move from Denmark Hill to Tulse Hill, the former gains extra Thameslink services and the latter loses them all >_<

(actually, given the phasing of TLP, when will the Sutton loop services actually start terminating at Blackfriars?)

 

[BRX]

It's a shame for those of us living on the Sutton loop that the through-services to St Pancras and beyond will cease... but on the other hand, presumably the much increased frequency through central London will mean that when you get off the train at Blackfriars, you'll not have to wait very long for the next through-train to appear.

Will the new signalling mean that the travel times between Blackfriars and St Pancras are improved, or just the frequency?

 

[cle]

I reckon it'll still be terribly slow. Shame as there's so much timetable slack.

I remember when Farringdon to West Hampstead was timetabled at 10 mins, it's now 13. And doesn't need to be.

The 4-5 mins from City Thameslink to Farringdon in the peaks is ridiculous too!

Would like them to use platforms 3-4 at Kentish Town better for faster trains.

 

[Class377/5]

Blackfriars bays and London Bridge?

Wouldn't that cause a conflict on through services?

London Bridge isn't on the Sutton loop though...

It's not about a direct Blackfriars to London Bridge service. What the proposal is is to run Blackfriars to London Bridge via Sutton. Just like weekends now expect Herne Hill trains go to the bays at Blackfriars.

It's a shame for those of us living on the Sutton loop that the through-services to St Pancras and beyond will cease... but on the other hand, presumably the much increased frequency through central London will mean that when you get off the train at Blackfriars, you'll not have to wait very long for the next through-train to appear.

Will the new signalling mean that the travel times between Blackfriars and St Pancras are improved, or just the frequency?

Well it a train every 2.5 mins those on the front of the train will catch a different service through the Core to those on the back!

As for travel time between stations, in the Core yes. The trains will be automatic driven so can account for factors drivers can't currently, ie they know where the train ahead is and what the max speed they can do. Plus the new trains will be faster then the 319's, look at the leap between the 319 and 377 and then another 10 year leap forward for the new stock.

I reckon it'll still be terribly slow. Shame as there's so much timetable slack.

I remember when Farringdon to West Hampstead was timetabled at 10 mins, it's now 13. And doesn't need to be.

The 4-5 mins from City Thameslink to Farringdon in the peaks is ridiculous too!

Would like them to use platforms 3-4 at Kentish Town better for faster trains.

Passenger loading means some trains need the extra time in running to accommodate the masses leaving the train. City is a go example where people regularly queue between carriages so they can walk out of the rear doors nearest their exit, even tho they queue past unused doors!

However I'm sure there is time tabling slack as well.

Something you forget there tho is these trains are arriving at places are mixing with different services all over the place meaning this extra time is also to do with performance pollution as well. Might not suit currently to have trains hitting London Bridge at certain times now so they give them extra time in the Core to allow smoother run. Otherwise you'd get big sit downs at Blackfriars, especially south bound. Difference with the final timetable is all timetables where the Thameslink run will be worked to accommodate the Thameslink trains, not Thameslink trans timed to accommodate them.

 

[BRX]

It's not about a direct Blackfriars to London Bridge service. What the proposal is is to run Blackfriars to London Bridge via Sutton. Just like weekends now expect Herne Hill trains go to the bays at Blackfriars.



Well it a train every 2.5 mins those on the front of the train will catch a different service through the Core to those on the back!

As for travel time between stations, in the Core yes. The trains will be automatic driven so can account for factors drivers can't currently, ie they know where the train ahead is and what the max speed they can do. Plus the new trains will be faster then the 319's, look at the leap between the 319 and 377 and then another 10 year leap forward for the new stock.



Passenger loading means some trains need the extra time in running to accommodate the masses leaving the train. City is a go example where people regularly queue between carriages so they can walk out of the rear doors nearest their exit, even tho they queue past unused doors!

However I'm sure there is time tabling slack as well.

Something you forget there tho is these trains are arriving at places are mixing with different services all over the place meaning this extra time is also to do with performance pollution as well. Might not suit currently to have trains hitting London Bridge at certain times now so they give them extra time in the Core to allow smoother run. Otherwise you'd get big sit downs at Blackfriars, especially south bound. Difference with the final timetable is all timetables where the Thameslink run will be worked to accommodate the Thameslink trains, not Thameslink trans timed to accommodate them.

All interesting stuff; thanks for posting.

Regarding the timetabling slack... having sit-downs at Blackfriars (rather than padding out through the core) would make sense for those changing onto/off Sutton loop services. It would make sense to get southbound services there as soon as possible rather than hanging about in the tunnels whilst a sutton connection that people could otherwise have made sets off.

 

[swt_passenger]

Blackfriars bays and London Bridge?

Wouldn't that cause a conflict on through services?

Round the Wimbledon Sutton loop - sorry if that wasn't obvious...

 

[Class377/5]

All interesting stuff; thanks for posting.

Regarding the timetabling slack... having sit-downs at Blackfriars (rather than padding out through the core) would make sense for those changing onto/off Sutton loop services. It would make sense to get southbound services there as soon as possible rather than hanging about in the tunnels whilst a sutton connection that people could otherwise have made sets off.

Once you get the increase in train numbers the padding won't be needed. Currently Thameslink trains are more slotted into the timetable in the areas they run, ie through Blackfriars to Croydon in the peaks than what is needed for an more even service. The plan is that all areas the service runs through will have some timetable adjustments. One of the reasons for dropping all the proposed Southeastern services is the need to rewrite all the time tables from a 20mins rotation to one based on 15mins meaning the whole of Kent was being looked at to be retimetabled. A huge task as I bet you can guess.

The new signalling will man travel times and frequency will be improve, but this requires new trains and the ATO to achieve. Don't expct much better until a few years down the road. Improvements are being planned ahead of the final Dec 2018 timetable change but not completely set in stone yet.

Round the Wimbledon Sutton loop - sorry if that wasn't obvious...

It is rather around the houses route to be far. Think so much efforts been put on the Blackfriars to London Bridge section, I'm not surprised most people don't revise there's going to be a round the houses route.

 

[cle]

So:

Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - Mitcham - Streatham - London Bridge

or

Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - West Croydon - several routes - London Bridge

???

 

[swt_passenger]

So:

Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - Mitcham - Streatham - London Bridge

The former, here's the proposed diagram from the South London RUS:

 

[Class377/5]

So:

Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - Mitcham - Streatham - London Bridge

or

Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - West Croydon - several routes - London Bridge

???

Same as the weekend now so north from Tulse Hill to either Blackfriars or London Bridge. Same as the weekend services really.

 

[BRX]

The former, here's the proposed diagram from the South London RUS:

Am I right to understand that frequency at Herne Hill/Loughborough Junction/Elephant & Castle (ie in between Tulse Hill and Blackfriars) would decrease compared to at present, under that arrangement?

 

[swt_passenger]

Am I right to understand that frequency at Herne Hill/Loughborough Junction/Elephant & Castle (ie in between Tulse Hill and Blackfriars) would decrease compared to at present, under that arrangement?

I don't think that's necessarily implied. It is just one of a number of different service diagrams - the one I showed happened to show the Wimbledon service - but there are other diagrams that need to be read to give the full service including through trains beyond Blackfriars. I don't think I should really copy the whole RUS here...

 

[Class377/5]

Am I right to understand that frequency at Herne Hill/Loughborough Junction/Elephant & Castle (ie in between Tulse Hill and Blackfriars) would decrease compared to at present, under that arrangement?

Current service is 4tph between Blackfriars and Tulse Hill with extra peak trains around the loop run by Southern (mix of 455 and 377's) so little changes.

 

[Anonywave]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is unusual that Tonbridge apparantly warrants 4tph in peak periods and none off peak?

 

[bicbasher]

I'm surprised that stations between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction are not included, currently 2tph run from Caterham to London Bridge, surely the 2tph St. Albans or WGC services could stop there, replacing the Southern Metro stoppers which in any case would have to go because of the reduction of terminating platforms at London Bridge?

 

[ert47]

I'm surprised that stations between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction are not included, currently 2tph run from Caterham to London Bridge, surely the 2tph St. Albans or WGC services could stop there, replacing the Southern Metro stoppers which in any case would have to go because of the reduction of terminating platforms at London Bridge?

Most likely the gap will be covered by London Overground and any Southern service travelling from the Mole Valley to London Bridge via Forest Hill and/or London Vic - London Bridge via Crystal Palace.

Or maybe they'll run a London Bridge > London Bridge service via Crystal Palace (not sure what that would solve though)

Im a little confused about the rail alignment in the Bermonsey area. I know that a fly under will be constructed to get the Charing Cross line onto the southern side of the Thameslink lines, but whats going on with the Down Slow BML line? How will it get to the otherside of the fast down?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm surprised that stations between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction are not included, currently 2tph run from Caterham to London Bridge, surely the 2tph St. Albans or WGC services could stop there, replacing the Southern Metro stoppers which in any case would have to go because of the reduction of terminating platforms at London Bridge?

Yes, I noticed that. At the time the South London RUS was written, they had Thameslink providing 4 tph stoppers on the Sydenham corridor, and most SN services running fast north of Norwood Jn. As far as I can see from subsequently published sketches of the track layout, this would have led to weaving conflicts north of New Cross Gate, as the grade separation at the Bermondsey dive-under has been designed on the assumption that Thameslink will be on the fasts (ie the middle pair) north of NXG, and SN on the slows.

So it would seem that the London Bridge low level SN terminating services will have to provide the stoppers, and the Thameslink services the fasts almost by default because the track layout insists on it.

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

Im a little confused about the rail alignment in the Bermonsey area. I know that a fly under will be constructed to get the Charing Cross line onto the southern side of the Thameslink lines, but whats going on with the Down Slow BML line? How will it get to the otherside of the fast down?

The Down Slow Brighton Line will go under the Thameslink lines alongside the up Charing Cross Line, roughly like this schematic:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RZ_ujIXCINU/SJDuvGVZqnI/AAAAAAAAA6A/B5MaHEAze9U/s1600-h/thameslink2015.png

 

[bicbasher]

Most likely the gap will be covered by London Overground and any Southern service travelling from the Mole Valley to London Bridge via Forest Hill and/or London Vic - London Bridge via Crystal Palace.

Or maybe they'll run a London Bridge > London Bridge service via Crystal Palace (not sure what that would solve though)

This would leave stations on the slow line without a direct service to East Croydon, although if the current Southern paths to Caterham are diverted to Sutton/Epsom Downs/Dorking etc via West Croydon this would still leave 6tph to Norwood Junction to change for the increased East Croydon service. (4 LO, 2 Southern)

The East Croydon through service could also be replaced with the current LB to Tattenham Corner fasts or the LB to Horsham/Tonbridge.

Incidentally, could we see an increase on the Caterham branch of 6tph? 4 Thameslink and the current 2tph Southern metro to Victoria with the Southern LB service axed.

 

[Class377/5]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is unusual that Tonbridge apparantly warrants 4tph in peak periods and none off peak?

It because it's taking over Southeastern services not Southern's.

I'm surprised that stations between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction are not included, currently 2tph run from Caterham to London Bridge, surely the 2tph St. Albans or WGC services could stop there, replacing the Southern Metro stoppers which in any case would have to go because of the reduction of terminating platforms at London Bridge?

Why should you be surprised?

At the end of the day nothing is set in stone yet, especially calling patterns. The map that started this is from East Midlands Trains. They have nothing to do with the Thameslink Programme. They are guessing at the calling points so don't take anything they put up as fact because it isn't.

If it was some of us on here would already know.

 

[DownSouth]

At the end of the day nothing is set in stone yet, especially calling patterns. The map that started this is from East Midlands Trains. They have nothing to do with the Thameslink Programme. They are guessing at the calling points so don't take anything they put up as fact because it isn't.

I don't see anything on the map to indicate it's EMT's map, it's probably an attachment for a report on TL service proposals which was sent to all concerned parties for comment, then accidentally put in a publicly accessible folder.

 

[Class377/5]

I don't see anything on the map to indicate it's EMT's map, it's probably an attachment for a report on TL service proposals which was sent to all concerned parties for comment, then accidentally put in a publicly accessible folder.

The address of EMT sorta gives it away of as a EMT thing. Trust me it's not offical or I'd have received it.

 

[swt_passenger]

The address of EMT sorta gives it away of as a EMT thing. Trust me it's not offical or I'd have received it.

As for the map, well it seems to have been made by EMT by the address. Currently the future path of service is thought to be this, but not guarantees it will be

The document bottom left title includes 'NRT'. That could quite easily stand for Network Rail Thameslink. Suggesting it is somehow not official because it was found on EMT's website is pure guesswork on your part and I suggest you know it.

Unless you are a member of FCC or NR higher management I suspect your comment "Trust me it's not offical or I'd have received it" is fiction as well.

 

[Class377/5]

The document bottom left title includes 'NRT'. That could quite easily stand for Network Rail Thameslink. Suggesting it is somehow not official because it was found on EMT's website is pure guesswork on your part and I suggest you know it.

Unless you are a member of FCC or NR higher management I suspect your comment "Trust me it's not offical or I'd have received it" is fiction as well.

NRT is a guess of yours and also wrong. They always use TLP in relation to project works (unless it's related to some of the very old stuff which still uses the term Thameslink 2000). I'm not going to state which one I am but you do agree my statement is true then.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not going to state which one I am but you do agree my statement is true then.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Pumbaa]

The document bottom left title includes 'NRT'. That could quite easily stand for Network Rail Thameslink. Suggesting it is somehow not official because it was found on EMT's website is pure guesswork on your part and I suggest you know it.

Unless you are a member of FCC or NR higher management I suspect your comment "Trust me it's not offical or I'd have received it" is fiction as well.

I agree with this comment - and call upon class377/5 to justify your points with evidence rather than messroom rhetoric or stop giving the impression you are the MD of Thameslink 2000. Ta.

 

[swt_passenger]

I would like to follow up the post above.

The particular issue is the meaning of the letters NRT, pointed out above, with respect to the Thameslink Programme official correspondence.

NRT is used in the file reference on many letters issued by the Thameslink Project offices. I therefore suggest it is even more likely that the original diagram is an official document, which happens to be stored on EMT's system.

As an example, here's another document attached below, there are many more that can be found easily online, using NR's website search function. This one is stored on my home PC as well - but it doesn't make it any less of an official letter...

 

[Class377/5]

I agree with this comment - and call upon class377/5 to justify your points with evidence rather than messroom rhetoric or stop giving the impression you are the MD of Thameslink 2000. Ta.

Sorry but no. I'm not giving out inside info to prove that EMT hasn't somehow got something that doesn't involve it.

I was trying to give insight but hey if you want to believe that bordering TOC's have info more than people working on the project then believe away.

 

[Pumbaa]

I was trying to give insight but hey if you want to believe that bordering TOC's have info more than people working on the project then believe away.

The problem there is I don't believe you work on the project and are just regurgitating what you hear in the mess room.

Which in turn makes you no more informed than anyone else and thus you have no right to try and impress your 'inside knowledge' as the correct knowledge. In every dispute you get into on the Thameslink Programme where information has already been released, you are consistently shown to be wrong, thanks to the research of users such as swt_passenger, and it is with this in mind I ask you to either back up what you say with solid fact or get off your high horse from FCC towers and join everybody else in the situation of not knowing and best guessing.

 

[ert47]

Just wondering if we could kinda get back on topic?

ktnx

ps. Bear in mind that there isn't a date on the map, so it could be out of date