Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[OwenB]

More evidence of this shambles destroying the leisure rail market. Once things are sorted there's going to need to be a comprehensive campaign to get the passenger numbers restored.

I'm guessing the answer is no, but are TOCs incentivised to increase ticket sales?

 

[Bishopstone]

More evidence of this shambles destroying the leisure rail market. Once things are sorted there's going to need to be a comprehensive campaign to get the passenger numbers restored.

Good point, and I made a similar observation during the 2016 Southern industrial dispute. Of course, there was no such campaign; weekend rail travel continues to be blighted by short notice engineering work, and passenger numbers have never recovered.

When (if) this gets sorted-out, we need a few ‘Network Days’!

 

[Hadders]

At the risk of going slightly off topic I really do think the best way to compensate GTR passengers for this farce would be for there to be no increase in fares next year. This would treat all passengers equally and proportionately, whether they are season ticket holders or occasional travelers. It's simple to understand and implement and doesn't require any admin to set up or process claims.

So that the rail industry does not lose out in the longer term I would allow the missed increase to be added to a future increase, restoring the fares to the position they would've been at.

 

[theageofthetra]

SouthEastern are introducing some tweaks to their timetable tomorrow. An early morning Dartford service is now starting at Gillingham, a Maidstone West service now starting from Tonbridge, an extra stop at Lewisham for one of the evening Hayes services, and 9 additional stops at Eynsford and Shoreham whilst GTR sort themselves out.

Let's hope too many drivers haven't removed Gil from their route cards!

 

[Failed Unit]

I'm guessing the answer is no, but are TOCs incentivised to increase ticket sales?

GTR are not. They get the same fee if the train is empty or full. Hence why customer service doesn’t feature on their agenda. They don’t care as DFT take them revenue risk. No passengers = No compliants so you could argue it is in GTRs interest to drive the passengers away. They don’t get anything but grief from them.

 

[OwenB]

GTR are not. They get the same fee if the train is empty or full. Hence why customer service doesn’t feature on their agenda. They don’t care as DFT take them revenue risk. No passengers = No compliants so you could argue it is in GTRs interest to drive the passengers away. They don’t get anything but grief from them.

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Quasi-privatisation like this is baffling. Absolutely no incentive to improve or to properly serve customers.

 

[Class465fan]

SouthEastern are introducing some tweaks to their timetable tomorrow. An early morning Dartford service is now starting at Gillingham, a Maidstone West service now starting from Tonbridge, an extra stop at Lewisham for one of the evening Hayes services, and 9 additional stops at Eynsford and Shoreham whilst GTR sort themselves out.

Will it do a stopping service from Gillingham to Dartford or will it run as a semi fast service?

 

[physics34]

Yes there is nothing running through E&C, I passed through Brixton earlier this evening and there were some people on the platform, presumably no signage to say trains aren't stopping there?

Might have been those statues on the platform!

 

[bramling]

The predictions we made are certainly coming true. Shambeslink is making Operation Princess look like a rip roaring success!

They've not even tried to run anything through the core from the GN side today, from what I can see. Everything using Kings Cross.

Every prediction has come true - worse in fact.

Had they gone for a 50/50 service with TL added on top of the old frequency, they could have recruited / assembled a completely fresh link of drivers and had them ready in advance, with no problem doing route learning as they would have no actual rostered duties. But no, Thameslink Programme dived in head first and have been totally found out as being incompetent.

 

[bspahh]

The current Ely-KX hourly fast service could be run with 700s and to Thameslink, subject to being able to accommodate a 12-car at Ely (is this possible?) and power supply limitations (not sure where we are with that), and would require to omit Waterbeach. To my mind that would be the way to do it. Naturally this means Kings Lynn can’t have 2tph GN - although that doesn’t mean they can’t have a second train provided by someone else.

http://flua.org.uk/documents/NR CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan September 2017.pdf is from September 2017 and it says that the "Anglia Traction Power Supply Upgrade - West Anglia Outer" is supposed to be ready for use in November 2018.

I don't know how the timetabling would work, turning a 12 car train around, rather than having it sent off towards Littleport

 

[GoatSarah]

Every prediction has come true - worse in fact.

Had they gone for a 50/50 service with TL added on top of the old frequency, they could have recruited / assembled a completely fresh link of drivers and had them ready in advance, with no problem doing route learning as they would have no actual rostered duties. But no, Thameslink Programme dived in head first and have been totally found out as being incompetent.

Can't speak for the other lines, but for Cambridge this could have been so easy. What they tried to do:

- replace the semi fast with the CBG - BTN service
- Add 1 CBG - KGX stopper per hour (bringing it to 2ph)

What they could have done:

- Not added the extra stopper, kept the KGX semi fast and then add the CBG - BTN as an extra hourly service.

Then if it all went wrong, just cut the additional service and it reverts to the pre-existing service pattern

 

[700007]

Judging by what a lot of people are writing on here, it seems the general consensus is split on who wants Thameslink and who doesn't?

Obviously the current infrastructure doesn't facilitate this and this is purely me opening a tin of wibble paint to get a bit high on, but I can only imagine people are happier if there were some sort of bay platforms or sidings southbound at London Blackfriars or London Bridge to allow new links through the core from the north but also sustainable enough to retain a reliable service as well? The scenario would be most services terminate there with the odd few such as 2 times an hour continuing to somewhere like Brighton? And then similar in the northbound direction at St Pancras?

To be honest you do have Blackfriars, Kentish Town and West Hampstead Thameslink available for use for the southbound services as the latter two aren't far away from London terminals at all and would allow a quicker recovery time in the event of a disruption. Please forgive my ignorance here but surely Smithfield sidings (the ones between Farringdon and City Thameslink) could be used during the off peak to terminate trains? I imagine during the peak it might be too hectic to use them with an up to 24tph frequency.

There was one poster on here that I do agree with who stated that the use of getting trains from Littlehampton or East Grinstead all the way through to Bedford was silly as it would run nearly empty for half of its trip past the core. I understand one benefit of the TL Programme was to relieve London terminals to allow other services to run a higher capacity service into there whilst ThamesLink trains went through the core and terminated elsewhere but I think Bedford for a service from East Grinstead especially is a bit too far out and might not be the best use of resources.

Just my thoughts, I don't know if you share it too.

 

[700007]

Can't speak for the other lines, but for Cambridge this could have been so easy. What they tried to do:
What they could have done:

- Not added the extra stopper, kept the KGX semi fast and then add the CBG - BTN as an extra hourly service.

Then if it all went wrong, just cut the additional service and it reverts to the pre-existing service pattern

That's actually a very good point, not sure why it wasn't pursued unless I am missing something?

 

[Steve Harris]

That's actually a very good point, not sure why it wasn't pursued unless I am missing something?

It probably wasn't pursued because GTR wanted to do what they and the Dft wanted them to do. Hence why the consultation was structured in such a way they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to do.

Regarding the earlier post of yours, i was wonderng if southbound services could terminate south of London Bridge and turn at Grove Park Sidings ? Similarly northbound could terminate at Finsbury Park and turn using Hornsey.

 

[jon0844]

Why would she go to Moorgate to go to Liverpool Street to get to Southend? Bearing in mind she's coming from Cambridge which has a direct GA service to Liverpool Street !

And if your going to make it a couple of changes of trains you could count in Birmingham and Manchester.

So i can't really see how people can moan that Cambridge doesn't have connectivity. That and if you own your own aircraft you can fly into the very local airport which is 3 miles from the City Centre. What could be more convenient.

I didn't mean to only refer to Cambridge but other services on the Great Northern side. Lots of other users besides those in Cambridge now have access to all the airports.

 

[700007]

It probably wasn't pursued because GTR wanted to do what they and the Dft wanted them to do. Hence why the consultation was structured in such a way they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to do.

Regarding the earlier post of yours, i was wonderng if southbound services could terminate south of London Bridge and turn at Grove Park Sidings ? Similarly northbound could terminate at Finsbury Park and turn using Hornsey.

If possible it would be swell because having services through the core is incredibly handy. It takes the strain off the London Underground but also provides useful (and easier) connections to the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines at Farringdon which are being uprated to a combined 32tph on that stretch during the next decade, likewise for the Circle and District at Blackfriars, the Central line a short walk away from City Thameslink and obviously the Elizabeth line later this year.

 

[F Great Eastern]

TL is also a useful option when there are tube closures and also is sometimes a nicer AC way to cross London than going via tube that may involve a couple of connections on some of the warmer lines .

 

[mmh]

I understand one benefit of the TL Programme was to relieve London terminals to allow other services to run a higher capacity service into there whilst ThamesLink trains went through the core and terminated elsewhere but I think Bedford for a service from East Grinstead especially is a bit too far out and might not be the best use of resources.

East Grinstead is less far both in mileage and (just) in time than Brighton, though.

it seems the general consensus is split on who wants Thameslink and who doesn't?

Other than perhaps a very small minority of people who would complain at any change even if everything worked perfectly and they weren't inconvenienced in any way, I don't think anyone really doesn't want there to be a good cross-London service. The problem is the shambles it's turned out to be.

The East Grinstead route is a prime example of why it's really unclear who some of the new routes are intended to benefit. It's a limited rush hour only service (replacing the previous limited rush hour only service to London Bridge), so no use for leisure journeys across London. At the times it runs the only use of it is to get to central London and back. The only benefit it brings is for the timetable itself.

And that's the big problem - the new timetable is trumpeted as if it would improve things for everyone with no exceptions, which just isn't true. The timetable is a reaction to "where on earth do we send the 24tph we promised", not to genuine passengers flows (existing or desirable new ones), it's for the railway's convenience (or as it's turned out, inconvenience), not the passenger's.

 

[DaveN]

1. Previously the large traincrew depot at Bedford covered a lot of Sutton loop work.
The idea of the future - that traincrew depots are opened at the ends of service groups and drive only those routes, mean that new traincrew depots at Luton and St Albans opened in May.

It also means that the GTR management believed there own PR about there being these TL1, TL2 etc routes where as the full new timetable is still a collection of joined North & South routes as Thameslink has always been. Trains starting and finishing at Bedford start/finish at Brighton, East Grinstead, Gatwick Airport, Horsham, Littlehampton, Rainham, Sutton and Three Bridges on a weekday.

They must have thought "we can get these drivers productive quicker if they only have to learn the St Albans and the loop". Whereas of course, the more drivers that know more routes the greater the rostering flexiblity. I imagine that is also good from a driver retention perspective to have more variety in the job.

 

[700007]

East Grinstead is less far both in mileage and (just) in time than Brighton, though.

It's a limited rush hour only service (replacing the previous limited rush hour only service to London Bridge), so no use for leisure journeys across London. At the times it runs the only use of it is to get to central London and back. The only benefit it brings is for the timetable itself.

And that's the big problem - the new timetable is trumpeted as if it would improve things for everyone with no exceptions, which just isn't true. The timetable is a reaction to "where on earth do we send the 24tph we promised", not to genuine passengers flows (existing or desirable new ones), it's for the railway's convenience (or as it's turned out, inconvenience), not the passenger's.

Yes I don't see the reasoning behind these several 'peak-time' services nor do I find their destinations 'match up'. Whilst I understand the need for things such as crew resting, daytime train maintenance, cleaning etc., what was the point in investing in this multi-billion pound programme only to reap the true benefits between 0600 and 0900 and 1600 and 1900 on a working weekday and have several brand spanking new trains sit around in a siding somewhere doing nothing (I can't imagine all of them are being serviced let alone cleaned during the day) not making money and making this project worthwhile.

I would've honestly considered making more of these services all day and leaving things such as Littlehampton - London Bridge or East Grinstead - London Bridge no further than Blackfriars / Kentish Town / West Hampstead and used the spare trains freed from this to run a more intensive, all day service somewhere else that people could have truly benefited from outside of the peaks.

 

[DaveN]

Yes I don't see the reasoning behind these several 'peak-time' services nor do I find their destinations 'match up'. Whilst I understand the need for things such as crew resting, daytime train maintenance, cleaning etc., what was the point in investing in this multi-billion pound programme only to reap the true benefits between 0600 and 0900 and 1600 and 1900 on a working weekday and have several brand spanking new trains sit around in a siding somewhere doing nothing (I can't imagine all of them are being serviced let alone cleaned during the day) not making money and making this project worthwhile.

I would've honestly considered making more of these services all day and leaving things such as Littlehampton - London Bridge or East Grinstead - London Bridge no further than Blackfriars / Kentish Town / West Hampstead and used the spare trains freed from this to run a more intensive, all day service somewhere else that people could have truly benefited from outside of the peaks.

And indeed the peak time extras to/from the north used to start from/go to Elephant & Castle or Blackfriars (going via Beckenham junction or Tulse Hill in some cases) or maybe Sevenoaks. But I presume the real reason that they don't do that is because they are now 12 car services and the sidings or terminating platforms haven't/can't be extended.

Since its creation Thameslink (and MML) services have gone through a fair few changes but most of these have been incremental small changes. Even the closure of the Moorgate branch was done incrementally with more services run through the core before closure. The only other big change was the post St Pancras low level blockade, when the "priority St Albans" policy was implemented. Hard to believe now but before that it was possible for a peak time Thameslink train to run through St Albans without stopping .
Clearly they were trying before this change to do this incrementally too - having the parallel services via Tulse Hill and London Bridge - and having the test GN services join up with their southern halves.

 

[DaveN]

It is clear that they have failed on a number of levels in that
* the changes should never have gone ahead without the drivers have the right route knowledge
* there should have been a rollback plan in case there were bad problems (even if that caused problems for other TOCs)
but also...

Surely there should also be an emergency timetable plan for if the canal tunnels are unusable? So either there isn't one, or they don't have the drivers to run it, or surely it can't been even worse than what has been happening on GN, or they have been told that they have to keep going with Thameslink?

When the Thameslink core is out of action, you get a pretty grim (especially for the stations further away from London) 4 tph on the slow line only.

 

[physics34]

Judging by what a lot of people are writing on here, it seems the general consensus is split on who wants Thameslink and who doesn't?

Obviously the current infrastructure doesn't facilitate this and this is purely me opening a tin of wibble paint to get a bit high on, but I can only imagine people are happier if there were some sort of bay platforms or sidings southbound at London Blackfriars or London Bridge to allow new links through the core from the north but also sustainable enough to retain a reliable service as well? The scenario would be most services terminate there with the odd few such as 2 times an hour continuing to somewhere like Brighton? And then similar in the northbound direction at St Pancras?

To be honest you do have Blackfriars, Kentish Town and West Hampstead Thameslink available for use for the southbound services as the latter two aren't far away from London terminals at all and would allow a quicker recovery time in the event of a disruption. Please forgive my ignorance here but surely Smithfield sidings (the ones between Farringdon and City Thameslink) could be used during the off peak to terminate trains? I imagine during the peak it might be too hectic to use them with an up to 24tph frequency.

There was one poster on here that I do agree with who stated that the use of getting trains from Littlehampton or East Grinstead all the way through to Bedford was silly as it would run nearly empty for half of its trip past the core. I understand one benefit of the TL Programme was to relieve London terminals to allow other services to run a higher capacity service into there whilst ThamesLink trains went through the core and terminated elsewhere but I think Bedford for a service from East Grinstead especially is a bit too far out and might not be the best use of resources.

Just my thoughts, I don't know if you share it too.

A quick fix would be to return the Littlehampton and East Grinstead services back to Southern terminating at LBG and replace them maybe with a few of the Epsom/Wimbledon to London Bridge peaks (many thameslink drivers already sign Sutton via West Croydon) extended to Bedford. Just an idea but a better use of resources.

 

[ijmad]

A quick fix would be to return the Littlehampton and East Grinstead services back to Southern terminating at LBG and replace them maybe with a few of the Epsom/Wimbledon to London Bridge peaks (many thameslink drivers already sign Sutton via West Croydon) extended to Bedford. Just an idea but a better use of resources.

Is there capacity at London Bridge for this? It's only 6 terminating platforms now. The new Southern timetable makes them much busier during the peaks. Maybe a few of the peak services to other destinations could be sacrificed but how would the timetables fit together I wonder?

 

[Taunton]

I understand one benefit of the TL Programme was to relieve London terminals to allow other services to run a higher capacity service into there whilst ThamesLink trains went through the core and terminated elsewhere.

But that hasn't happened, in fact the opposite, because both the original St Pancras and the terminating platforms at London Bridge have been reduced to a fraction of their traditional capacity, while Moorgate has been abandoned completely.

 

[JonathanH]

A quick fix would be to return the Littlehampton and East Grinstead services back to Southern terminating at LBG and replace them maybe with a few of the Epsom/Wimbledon to London Bridge peaks (many thameslink drivers already sign Sutton via West Croydon) extended to Bedford. Just an idea but a better use of resources.

Can Epsom turn a 12-car train?

There is obviously demand for the Core stations - once north of Hove, the Littlehampton train serves stations which have had Thameslink for a long time.

It would be odd (and complicated from a stock working point of view) to have peak extras from Epsom served by Thameslink and Southern for the rest of the day - makes much more sense for peak only routes to be those which go through the Core.

 

[whoosh]

Please forgive my ignorance here but surely Smithfield sidings (the ones between Farringdon and City Thameslink) could be used during the off peak to terminate trains? I imagine during the peak it might be too hectic to use them with an up to 24tph frequency.

You're forgiven! ;-p

You can only fit 8 cars in Smithfield. Also, when trains leave Smithfield they have to go back into the Northbound platform at City Thameslink before crossing over to the Southbound on departure. This means holding up the Northbound service for a few minutes, along with the confusion of having to send passengers over to a different platform to normal.
This is fine for the odd occasion of something out of the ordinary, or weekend engineering work with a reduced service, but off peak on weekdays will ramp up to 18 trains per hour.

Smithfield is now only useful for 8 car formations which have problems switching to overhead wires - they can be put out of the way on DC third rail in Smithfield.

 

[London Trains]

Can Epsom turn a 12-car train?

There is obviously demand for the Core stations - once north of Hove, the Littlehampton train serves stations which have had Thameslink for a long time.

It would be odd (and complicated from a stock working point of view) to have peak extras from Epsom served by Thameslink and Southern for the rest of the day - makes much more sense for peak only routes to be those which go through the Core.

No, and none of the stations on that route except Sutton can even fit a 12 car train

 

[bramling]

But that hasn't happened, in fact the opposite, because both the original St Pancras and the terminating platforms at London Bridge have been reduced to a fraction of their traditional capacity, while Moorgate has been abandoned completely.

I suspect we’re now at the stage where lots of pennies are starting to drop - the infrastructure and planning just wasn’t and isn’t there to deliver what they wanted to do. All the reassurances - e.g. it will be easy to divert to the old termini when problems arise - are now turning out to be predictably wrong.

The powers that be have evidently gambled everything on the Thameslink Programme dream, and this misjudgement is fast turning out to be ruinous. Flaw after flaw are now becoming apparent.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I think someone mentioned earlier about overlapping services?
Ie trains from the South terminate at West Hampstead, Kentish Town or Finsbury Park, but how would this work for trains coming from.the North?