Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[petersi]

I used to use the (then) half hourly service from Hatfield to Stevenage (and back) for the football on Saturdays. Now it's just 1 per hour, it means any cancellation would mean missing the match or being home 90 minutes later than catching the 17.10 home, like I did last season. I can't believe the reinstatement of these services will be at least a year in coming.

That’s if they are ever reinstated
I bet govia and department of transport quite like the financial savings

 

[OwenB]

That’s if they are ever reinstated
I bet govia and department of transport quite like the financial savings

Well quite.. It would be an absolute travesty if they get away with running a worse weekend service permanently. Seems bizarre they've been let off the hook for 12+ months.

 

[JonathanH]

Going back to the Purley thing for this weekend, I think sanity did prevail. The Horsham trains had an extra stop at Purley, though it was only announced at East Croydon, on my train, at least.

The Horsham to London Bridge trains I caught on Saturday didn't stop at Purley.

Annoyingly, the 0652 from Reigate to Tonbridge left Reigate a minute late and stopped at the London end of platform 1 - the 0659 to London Bridge pulled out of Redhill well before we came to a stop in the platform. As a result, a 30 minute wait (although I used the time usefully to go to Sainsburys).

The 0729 from Redhill to London Bridge was then seven minutes late. This was due, it seems, to a late running train from Arundel (which the Thameslink train had further delayed) being given precedence at Three Bridges. Needless to say, my train was then held after Coulsdon South for the crossing to the fast line for a Brighton to London Bridge service and I missed the half-hourly connection to London Victoria. However, as the Brighton to London Bridge train was due to call at Norwood Junction, we then got precedence over it north of East Croydon. Following a walk from Charing Cross, I got to Victoria just before 0840.

The 1900 from London Bridge to Horsham ran to time back to Redhill. Seemed to be plenty of room aboard. A 12-car train once every half-hour seems enough for the weekend demand between London Bridge and Redhill for the time being (which I suspect that GTR and the DfT realise).

 

[sefton]

I see GTR were playing with their toy train set again last night with no thought for their customers.

The 9J54 1655 Horsham to Peterborough service was cancelled due to a problem with the on-board safety systems - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64328/2018/11/20/advanced

Next service half an hour later to Arlesey and Sandy was the 9J58 1755 Horsham to Peterborough. However as that service had picked up 15 minutes of delays by the time it reached St Pancras, they decided to have a game of skip stop with their train set and miss Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, and St Neots, kicking everyone out into the cold at Hitchin - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64332/2018/11/20/advanced

However the six minute delay at Hitchin seems to indicate GTR's customers were not happy about being shoved out into the cold and damp by GTR's stupidity, and GTR probably lost all the benefit of the time they had intended to make up by skipping those four stations.

 

[greyman42]

I see GTR were playing with their toy train set again last night with no thought for their customers.

The 9J54 1655 Horsham to Peterborough service was cancelled due to a problem with the on-board safety systems - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64328/2018/11/20/advanced

Next service half an hour later to Arlesey and Sandy was the 9J58 1755 Horsham to Peterborough. However as that service had picked up 15 minutes of delays by the time it reached St Pancras, they decided to have a game of skip stop with their train set and miss Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, and St Neots, kicking everyone out into the cold at Hitchin - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64332/2018/11/20/advanced

However the six minute delay at Hitchin seems to indicate GTR's customers were not happy about being shoved out into the cold and damp by GTR's stupidity, and GTR probably lost all the benefit of the time they had intended to make up by skipping those four stations.

What would have caused the 6 minute delay; would it of been passengers blocking the doors?

 

[sefton]

What would have caused the 6 minute delay; would it of been passengers blocking the doors?

No idea as I wasn't there, but a six minute delay is quite a long time so something must have happened. I just saw the response on Twitter from GTR's customers who had been treated badly and were obviously not happy.

Such incidents might cause GTR to stop and think next time about whether it is worth annoying their customers by skip stopping, as this is the second or third time where the customers have rebelled and GTR hasn't actually gained anything.

 

[bramling]

What would have caused the 6 minute delay; would it of been passengers blocking the doors?

Possibly. Passengers on the Peterborough route are seriously fed up with their newly transformed service. I suspect the staff at Hitchin sympathise with this, as they tend to be on the receiving end of a lot of the trouble.

 

[387star]

From dec there is a new 0525 to Peterborough off Horsham and an 0624 the latter running fast to Crawley with the slower Bedford behind it. They are the only two starting from Horsham going to Peterborough till 0855 (another new one)as the other five start from Gatwick or Three Bridges
Five off Horsham are Bedford services between 0600-0830

 

[ComUtoR]

as this is the second or third time where the customers have rebelled and GTR hasn't actually gained anything.

The passengers who could have benefited from the skip stop have lost out. Congratulations to those who may or may not have blocked any doors. Your fellow passengers thank you.

Anyone else who may have lost out from any further delays or cancellations thank you too.

 

[bramling]

The passengers who could have benefited from the skip stop have lost out. Congratulations to those who may or may not have blocked any doors. Your fellow passengers thank you.

Anyone else who may have lost out from any further delays or cancellations thank you too.

I’d put it another way.

Congratulations to those who have designed a service which simply isn’t resilient enough to be fit for purpose. Your farepaying passengers thank you.

Anyone else using services elsewhere on the expanded Thameslink network who may also regularly lose out from now-common delays or cancellations thank you from them too.

 

[Aictos]

The passengers who could have benefited from the skip stop have lost out. Congratulations to those who may or may not have blocked any doors. Your fellow passengers thank you.

Anyone else who may have lost out from any further delays or cancellations thank you too.

Agreed!!!

That train that was meant to skip stop all stations between Hitchin and Huntingdon was booked to arrive at Peterborough at 20:34 and depart at 20:54 which is a 20 minute turnaround however as the train was already 21 minutes late at Hitchin GTR took the decision to run it fast to Huntingdon to try to get some of that time back as to reduce the impact on the next working.

As it was, the 18:25 ex Horsham was just 10 minutes behind the late running 17:55 ex Horsham which was calling at the same stops so it is not difficult to understand that GTR took that decision which some have objected to and blamed the timetable however the reason for the delay to 9J58 might have had nothing to do with the timetable no matter how much certain people constantly say is to blame for everything!!!

It could have had any number of reasons for a late departure from Horsham which isn't helped by the fact that it gets further delayed en route by other peak services.

So for those selfish enough to delay a service because they refuse to accept that there is a alternative service less then 10 mins away calling at the same stations as the one which is now running fast, I applaud you - Well Done

 

[bramling]

Agreed!!!

That train that was meant to skip stop all stations between Hitchin and Huntingdon was booked to arrive at Peterborough at 20:34 and depart at 20:54 which is a 20 minute turnaround however as the train was already 21 minutes late at Hitchin GTR took the decision to run it fast to Huntingdon to try to get some of that time back as to reduce the impact on the next working.

As it was, the 18:25 ex Horsham was just 10 minutes behind the late running 17:55 ex Horsham which was calling at the same stops so it is not difficult to understand that GTR took that decision which some have objected to and blamed the timetable however the reason for the delay to 9J58 might have had nothing to do with the timetable no matter how much certain people constantly say is to blame for everything!!!

It could have had any number of reasons for a late departure from Horsham which isn't helped by the fact that it gets further delayed en route by other peak services.

So for those selfish enough to delay a service because they refuse to accept that there is a alternative service less then 10 mins away calling at the same stations as the one which is now running fast, I applaud you - Well Done

Er, for a start the train was 17 late arriving at Hitchin not 21.

Secondly, the train was delayed south of the river on its southbound journey to Horsham. This resulted in a delayed start to the northbound journey, with further time lost on the journey - mainly south of the river, but also reactionary delays on the GN side.

As the root cause of the delay was south of the river, it's 100% reasonable for people to blame the delay on the new timetable! Both for running south of the river in the first place, and for quite clearly having inadequate turnround allowances at each end.

 

[Aictos]

Er, for a start the train was 17 late arriving at Hitchin not 21.

It was 21 minutes late leaving so why nit pick?

Secondly, the train was delayed south of the river on its southbound journey to Horsham. This resulted in a delayed start to the northbound journey, with further time lost on the journey - mainly south of the river, but also reactionary delays on the GN side.

Again there could be many reasons why it was delayed south of the river and may have nothing to do with the timetable no matter how much you want it to be.

It could have been any number of issues delaying it, as it was the train on it's working from Peterborough to Horsham got delayed at Coulsdon South and got later because of a issue/s there.

As the root cause of the delay was south of the river, it's 100% reasonable for people to blame the delay on the new timetable!

Of course, because the root cause was south of the river it is 100% reasonable for everyone to blame the new timetable even if the delay was absolutely nothing to do with the timetable in the first place but don't let a good rant stop you...

I guess by that explanation that the next time a TL service gets delayed at Peterborough for whatever reason be it waiting platform staff, train crew, last minute assistance that everyone south of the river from London Blackfriars onwards can 100% blame the timetable as the issue.

Both for running south of the river in the first place, and for quite clearly having inadequate turnround allowances at each end.

Okay so the timetable is at fault for running more trains though Central London rather then clogging up London Terminals and for not having enough turnround allowances at each end.

They have 10 minutes at Horsham which is plenty of time even more so when staff both Network Rail and GTR know it's delayed coming in so should be aware of the importance to ensure the turnaround is done as effective as possible.

Also at Peterborough they have 20 minutes turnaround so I can't understand why you insist that these times are not enoug, maybe they ought to sit at each terminus for a hour?

 

[bramling]

It was 21 minutes late leaving so why nit pick?



Again there could be many reasons why it was delayed south of the river and may have nothing to do with the timetable no matter how much you want it to be.

It could have been any number of issues delaying it, as it was the train on it's working from Peterborough to Horsham got delayed at Coulsdon South and got later because of a issue/s there.



Of course, because the root cause was south of the river it is 100% reasonable for everyone to blame the new timetable even if the delay was absolutely nothing to do with the timetable in the first place but don't let a good rant stop you...

I guess by that explanation that the next time a TL service gets delayed at Peterborough for whatever reason be it waiting platform staff, train crew, last minute assistance that everyone south of the river from London Blackfriars onwards can 100% blame the timetable as the issue.



Okay so the timetable is at fault for running more trains though Central London rather then clogging up London Terminals and for not having enough turnround allowances at each end.

They have 10 minutes at Horsham which is plenty of time even more so when staff both Network Rail and GTR know it's delayed coming in so should be aware of the importance to ensure the turnaround is done as effective as possible.

Also at Peterborough they have 20 minutes turnaround so I can't understand why you insist that these times are not enoug, maybe they ought to sit at each terminus for a hour?

Clearly 10 and 20 minutes *isn’t* enough or we wouldn’t be having these discussions on a regular basis.

The point about the 17 minutes was you claimed the delay was so great that it couldn’t be absorbed in the turnaround. This seems to me more like an attempt to get the train perfectly right-time going south, which is understandable for Thameslink fragility reasons, but unfortunately again takes us back to the timetable. Under the old setup a slightly late departure from Peterborough heading south to King’s Cross wouldn’t have bothered too many people - it would simply be made up on the next turnround.

Many of us intimated on here that the plans were too fragile. Others suggested that this was pessimistic and that all would work just fine. Do you think the two trainloads of people stuck at Hitchin in the cold for up to an hour would think this service is just fine?!

 

[sefton]

It was running 17 minutes late which was annoying to the customers on the train.

To then double that delay for those customers by kicking them off the train is not acceptable.

If the timetable is so fragile then it needs to be fixed.

 

[ComUtoR]

To then double that delay for those customers by kicking them off the train is not acceptable.

But deliberately delaying a train because your (not you specifically) annoyed about skip stopping is acceptable ?

If the timetable is so fragile then it needs to be fixed.

Agreed.

 

[Ianno87]

Clearly 10 and 20 minutes *isn’t* enough or we wouldn’t be having these discussions on a regular basis.

The point about the 17 minutes was you claimed the delay was so great that it couldn’t be absorbed in the turnaround. This seems to me more like an attempt to get the train perfectly right-time going south, which is understandable for Thameslink fragility reasons, but unfortunately again takes us back to the timetable. Under the old setup a slightly late departure from Peterborough heading south to King’s Cross wouldn’t have bothered too many people - it would simply be made up on the next turnround.

Many of us intimated on here that the plans were too fragile. Others suggested that this was pessimistic and that all would work just fine. Do you think the two trainloads of people stuck at Hitchin in the cold for up to an hour would think this service is just fine?!

So you simultaneously:

-Complain the timetable is too fragile, but also
-Complain that the timetable has time for trains to recover late running?

The origin of the delays is not the timetable itself, but things happening to the timetable elsewhere on the network.

Looks like the timetable is capable of recovering delay fairly well. But a delay south of the river is always going to propagate north and vice-versa. It's how it recovers after *that* which is key (which the timetable does pretty well - late arrivals at Cambridge ex-Brighton are often recovered for the return)

 

[The Box Photter]

As we've all seen since May, the regular decimation of northbound trains on the Bedford route because of delays in 3rd rail land are now being inflicted on GN passengers too.

Time to scrap Thameslink altogether and turn Blackfriars into a terminus. That way the 3rd rail delay contagion can be kept south of the river (well almost south of the river).

 

[sefton]

GTR have just done it again with RJ64 tonight - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64338/2018/11/22/advanced

And according to Twitter, for added incompetence it was announced the train would call Huntington but after leaving Hitchin they changed it to go non stop to Peterborough.

I wonder if GTR are trying to provoke their customers into pulling the cord.

 

[sefton]

But deliberately delaying a train because your (not you specifically) annoyed about skip stopping is acceptable ?

I doubt anyone deliberately delayed the train, but if I was in that situation and the incompetent GTR was going to double the delay to my journey then I wouldn't rush.

 

[bramling]

So you simultaneously:

-Complain the timetable is too fragile, but also
-Complain that the timetable has time for trains to recover late running?

The origin of the delays is not the timetable itself, but things happening to the timetable elsewhere on the network.

Looks like the timetable is capable of recovering delay fairly well. But a delay south of the river is always going to propagate north and vice-versa. It's how it recovers after *that* which is key (which the timetable does pretty well - late arrivals at Cambridge ex-Brighton are often recovered for the return)

There’s three issues.

Firstly that the extra mileage means there’s more chance of things happening. This is the fault of the Thameslink concept, and by definition its timetable that we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have Thameslink.

Secondly there’s the fact that the number of turnarounds has been reduced by virtue of the fact that two services are joined together. So that’s 50% of the recovery opportunities disappeared in a stroke. As an aside, the old timetable didn’t need recovery time during the journey as there was much less chance of delays spreading beyond the individual journey - so as well as being more reliable users also tended to get a quicker journey.

Then thirdly there’s the issue that this timetable simply isn’t absorbing these increased numbers of delays without intervention measures which are causing great inconvenience to people, especially those reliant on a half-hourly service.

All this is exactly as I expected, sadly.

 

[bramling]

I doubt anyone deliberately delayed the train, but if I was in that situation and the incompetent GTR was going to double the delay to my journey then I wouldn't rush.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the delay was if the train was to be turned out onto the down fast, and it was simply waiting for the signal to clear. It wouldn’t be the first time. Likewise we’ve seen Cambridge trains having their stops removed and then signalled straight behind an all-stations train!

 

[ComUtoR]

23L to 9L Kinda shows how skip stopping can recover the service.

 

[sefton]

And to add for RJ64 this evening, to leave St Pancreas 9 minutes late and then pick up another 10 minutes delay between Finsbury Park and Stevenage means someone had decided this one would be kicked to the back of the queue as it had already failed and damn customer service.

 

[sefton]

23L to 9L Kinda shows how skip stopping can recover the service.

Toy train sets.

Consider the customers on the train.

 

[ComUtoR]

Toy train sets.

Consider the customers on the train.

What do you think they are doing ? The skip stopping debate has raged throughout this entire forum numerous times. Ultimately, the best for "the passengers" is to recover the service a quick as possible with the least impact. In this respect, the TOCs can never win. If they skip stops to recover the service they are vilified, if the run trains until everything breaks they get vilified for not recovering the service.

The knock on effects for late running is well known and skip stopping is a very good way to get services back on time. If this service was 21L then there would be complaints about GTR constantly running services late. It's a no win situation.

Other than the comments about the timetable being broken, everything else comes across as nothing more than an angry rant against GTR.

 

[sefton]

What do you think they are doing ? .

They are additionally inconveniencing customers who have already been delayed, is what they are doing.

They should not 'punish' customers further on already delayed trains by additionally delaying them by kicking them out onto a freezing platform and should run them to the stopping pattern they advised to their customers when they got on the train.

If that delays future services then so be it, but I would have thought whoever was in charge of designing the timetable would have had the intelligence to consider that in their planning.

In summary - Deliver customer service to the people on the train.

 

[bramling]

What do you think they are doing ? The skip stopping debate has raged throughout this entire forum numerous times. Ultimately, the best for "the passengers" is to recover the service a quick as possible with the least impact. In this respect, the TOCs can never win. If they skip stops to recover the service they are vilified, if the run trains until everything breaks they get vilified for not recovering the service.

The knock on effects for late running is well known and skip stopping is a very good way to get services back on time. If this service was 21L then there would be complaints about GTR constantly running services late. It's a no win situation.

Other than the comments about the timetable being broken, everything else comes across as nothing more than an angry rant against GTR.

In the case of the Peterborough route, the vast majority of passengers will be boarding or alighting at an intermediate station. So missing stops has a big effect on people. Arrival time at the final destination is irrelevant if most people can’t get on the train to get there!

So there’s little benefit to people on the journey concerned. It seems that many of these recovery decisions are more to get the train perfectly on time for the next trip - albeit in many cases not particularly successfully in practice. One of the examples given in this thread seems a case in point. A few minutes delay to the next service wouldn’t be a major problem to passengers - it seems the problem is they’re desperate not to start the next journey with any late running because it messes up the Thameslink network, delays propagating, affecting other people the other side of the river, still not being on time for the trip after, et cetera.

The point of a railway is to carry punters from A to B, and the main function of an operator is to deliver its published timetable. This operation simply isn’t achieving those objectives.

 

[bramling]

They are additionally inconveniencing customers who have already been delayed, is what they are doing.

They should not 'punish' customers further on already delayed trains by additionally delaying them by kicking them out onto a freezing platform and should run them to the stopping pattern they advised to their customers when they got on the train.

If that delays future services then so be it, but I would have thought whoever was in charge of designing the timetable would have had the intelligence to consider that in their planning.

In summary - Deliver customer service to the people on the train.

Some focus was put into the core, however no one seems to have thought about resilience on the rest of the network. It’s like some toddlers simply joined some dots on a map with little more sophisticated planning. Hence why we now see a disastrous operation.

They couldn’t even get the Stevenage bay built in time. How many years did they have to plan for all this?!

 

[ComUtoR]

If that delays future services then so be it

So run the service without any recovery whatsoever ? That will just delay multiple services and thousands more passengers. How late should they run a service ? if you already believe that running it 21 minutes late is acceptable then what about 40 ? 50 ?

What about making additional stops ? Is that allowed or should they only run to the booked pattern ? That is what you are suggesting.

and should run them to the stopping pattern they advised to their customers when they got on the train.

Stopping additionally will inconvenience those already on the train. Those people who may be on a platform due to other circumstances will benefit from another service being asked to stop and pick them up.

but I would have thought whoever was in charge of designing the timetable would have had the intelligence to consider that in their planning.

How do you plan for a 21minute delay ? Again the TOC cannot win here. There will be an accusation of "padding" if time is added for dwell times and recovery time. There will be complaints about longer journeys for no reason, it will destroy any increase in #tph capacity and that generates complaints. How long should a turnaround time be ? 30 minutes ? If you need to plan for a 21 minute delay you need to build that in somewhere. Longer paths and terminals with units sitting there doing nothing "just in case" There has to be a red line drawn somewhere. I fully agree that the timetable is broken and everything is way too tight but building in huge slack for delay recovery just becomes detrimental.

There are a couple of planners on the forum. Maybe you could offer up some suggestions.