Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[Steve Harris]

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.

Indeed they do, BUT, you was replying to GoatSarah who was referring to services from Cambridge. Therefore one would rightly assume as you quoted her that you was referring to services from Cambridge.

It might be a good idea to either post a seperate post without quoting anybody or specifically stating the point your trying to make. That way there is no confusion.

Anyway, trying to get things back on topic.

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?

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.

That of course depends on capicaty and paths being available.

 

[bramling]

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

Something along those lines would have worked.

1tph KX Peterborough semi fast
1tph KX Cambridge semi fast
1tph KX King’s Lynn fast
1tph KX Cambridge stopping

1tph Peterborough Horsham
1tph Cambridge Brighton (perhaps serving the village stations if it could be pathed)
1tph Ashford Letchworth stopping

And maybe
1tph Brighton Ely fast

The first batch would be operated by existing crews, and the second batch by a new link assembled and prepared in advance of “go live” date.

Any surplus of drivers after the bedding in period would cover retirements etc.

Could also have saved a load by utilising 365s which are going for store and not building so many 700s. On the debit side some platform extensions would be necessary - although this should really have happened years ago anyway.

Despite having expectations of doom, I’m totally blown out of the water with how much of a shambles this is. It’s pure incompetence that anyone thought this could be delivered in the planned way - and it’s not an overreaction to suggest some people shouldn’t be in a job (although exactly who is hard to pin down, especially as the specification has been going on for some years).

 

[physics34]

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.

Would have to be 8 car but with other stock changes elsewhere to compensate

 

[physics34]

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.

But sort of odd for the few Littlehamptons and Grinsteads to go through the core. These are clearly problem trains because of the lack of route knowledge etc. There must be a way round it. Im sure the grinny and Littlehampton punters wouldnt be too distressed to have the trains returning to 377s and terminating at london bridge

 

[physics34]

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.

London Bridge would have more platform space to turn around if the original plan of caterham/tatts going to thameslink wasnt scrapped. Big error!

 

[physics34]

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?

The epsom/dorking to london bridge peaks would be going through the core....there space at london bridge replaced by the aforementioned Litt/Grinny thameslinks

 

[MikeWh]

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.

Nice idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Within zones 1-6 the fares are either set by TfL (and frozen anyway) or RDG (ATOC) on behalf of the other TOCs. I'm not sure how readily TfL could apply another new fare scale. Then you've got the issue of journeys using TL and another TOC, in some cases priced by the other TOC. And how would you cope with Sevenoaks or Strood etc where passengers may use TL or may use SE? Ditto for other scenarios.

 

[chriskeene]

Being an optimist, at some point things will have to start to slowly improve, if only as they can't really get any worse.

I was wondering what metrics and statistics would be good to track this.

Could some be deceiving, i.e. statistics around lateness may become worse as less trains are canceled, which would not reflect the improvement in more trains running.
I wondered if simply the number of trains running through the core (especially in the peak) might be a good metric to track.

Any thoughts on what can show an over-all picture as to how well - or how badly - (mostly the latter) things are performing (relatively) on a day to day basis, and are there useful websites to access these?

thanks

 

[The Box Photter]

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.

No. Terminating southbound trains at West Hampstead and Kentish Town would be a disaster. The infrastructure at both those stations can't handle the incoming trains. In addtion, have you seen how crowded the Northern Line platforms are at Kentish Town when just one southbound train terminates in rush hour? By all means have the trains call there on the way into London, but the PRIMARY ROLE of Thameslink is to get people from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire INTO London, not nearly into London. It's just a quirk of fate that these trains then go on to Brighton. I'm sure my colleagues who come in from Brighton and stations north thereof would feel equally betrayed if their trains terminated at East Croydon or Herne Hill.

We just want our reasonably reliable commuter railway back.

 

[DaveN]

Nice idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Within zones 1-6 the fares are either set by TfL (and frozen anyway) or RDG (ATOC) on behalf of the other TOCs. I'm not sure how readily TfL could apply another new fare scale. Then you've got the issue of journeys using TL and another TOC, in some cases priced by the other TOC. And how would you cope with Sevenoaks or Strood etc where passengers may use TL or may use SE? Ditto for other scenarios.

Back in the day before Delay Repay, some of the annual Thameslink fare increases were reduced to reflect the poor service. [I think that is why the MML fares are cheaper than the GN ones, but don't tell anyone ]. I think that was all the fares that were set by the TOC which of course was easier in those days. I don't think this covered the London zonal fares.

 

[Failed Unit]

On the positive side today we actually had decent service on GN today - Although when you consider that 50% of the inners were pre-emptively cancelled maybe not. But at least the outers ran for once. All because I didn't need to travel.

 

[mmh]

Nice idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Within zones 1-6 the fares are either set by TfL (and frozen anyway) or RDG (ATOC) on behalf of the other TOCs. I'm not sure how readily TfL could apply another new fare scale. Then you've got the issue of journeys using TL and another TOC, in some cases priced by the other TOC. And how would you cope with Sevenoaks or Strood etc where passengers may use TL or may use SE? Ditto for other scenarios.

"Easy." If TfL fares are going to stay frozen, they're not a concern. Make the freeze apply to apply to all fares set by GTR and Southeastern.

Then that's not fair to people with fares set by Northern, so include those too.

Then it's not fair to passengers with fares set by another operator who haven't themselves had mass disruption but has had an impact on them. East Coast, Transpennine Express perhaps. So include them.

Then it's unfair that a lot of the country have a fare freeze but other parts don't, and it'd cause a lot of complaints, the media would have a field day and it'd be very awkward politically.

So, the real solution is you have a nation-wide fare freeze for a year. Everyone's "happy."

(Cue replies about breaking franchise contracts, which somehow are only ever breakable without fuss in one direction)

 

[The Box Photter]

"Easy." If TfL fares are going to stay frozen, they're not a concern. Make the freeze apply to apply to all fares set by GTR and Southeastern.

Then that's not fair to people with fares set by Northern, so include those too.

Then it's not fair to passengers with fares set by another operator who haven't themselves had mass disruption but has had an impact on them. East Coast, Transpennine Express perhaps. So include them.

Then it's unfair that a lot of the country have a fare freeze but other parts don't, and it'd cause a lot of complaints, the media would have a field day and it'd be very awkward politically.

So, the real solution is you have a nation-wide fare freeze for a year. Everyone's "happy."

(Cue replies about breaking franchise contracts, which somehow are only ever breakable without fuss in one direction)

How about a 10% fare REDUCTION across the board, funded partially by the sacking of Horton, his management team, and the DfT and NR apparatchiks who created this vile plan? Grayling can go as well.

 

[bramling]

No. Terminating southbound trains at West Hampstead and Kentish Town would be a disaster. The infrastructure at both those stations can't handle the incoming trains. In addtion, have you seen how crowded the Northern Line platforms are at Kentish Town when just one southbound train terminates in rush hour? By all means have the trains call there on the way into London, but the PRIMARY ROLE of Thameslink is to get people from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire INTO London, not nearly into London. It's just a quirk of fate that these trains then go on to Brighton. I'm sure my colleagues who come in from Brighton and stations north thereof would feel equally betrayed if their trains terminated at East Croydon or Herne Hill.

We just want our reasonably reliable commuter railway back.

Presumably it would be feasible to terminate some trains from the south at some of those destinations, in lieu of to the GN. Since it’s allegedly now suddenly so impossible to terminate trains at the likes of London Bridge.

 

[Agent_Squash]

How about a 10% fare REDUCTION across the board, funded partially by the sacking of Horton, his management team, and the DfT and NR apparatchiks who created this vile plan? Grayling can go as well.

And where do you propose the new management team are funded from?

Your anti-Thameslink rhetoric is plausible, but having a go isn't going to solve the problem.

 

[Antman]

Might have been those statues on the platform!

No they were definitely real life passengers lol

 

[JonathanH]

London Bridge would have more platform space to turn around if the original plan of caterham/tatts going to thameslink wasnt scrapped. Big error!

I still fail to see how Caterham / Tattenham trains worked in the Thameslink timetable - as I recall Tattenham was all day from Cambridge and Caterham peaks from Welwyn - neither of these trains are currently running through the Core.

Would an extra path on the East Croydon to Purley stretch have been needed (noting the congestion issues on this route) or would one of these routes had fewer services?

 

[700007]

No. Terminating southbound trains at West Hampstead and Kentish Town would be a disaster. The infrastructure at both those stations can't handle the incoming trains. In addtion, have you seen how crowded the Northern Line platforms are at Kentish Town when just one southbound train terminates in rush hour? By all means have the trains call there on the way into London, but the PRIMARY ROLE of Thameslink is to get people from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire INTO London, not nearly into London. It's just a quirk of fate that these trains then go on to Brighton. I'm sure my colleagues who come in from Brighton and stations north thereof would feel equally betrayed if their trains terminated at East Croydon or Herne Hill.

We just want our reasonably reliable commuter railway back.

Oh my goodness I should have proof read! Sorry by southbound I meant services coming from the South. I was getting so carried away when writing this in my head I forgot to use the right terms and actually talk sense!!

Just to clarify:
Services from East Grinstead / Littlehampton terminate at West Hampstead ThamesLink or Kentish Town to provide a better use of capacity
Some services from northwards destinations such as Cambridge and Peterborough, but not all, could terminate at a station close to the Southern end of the core (someone mentioned Grove Park sidings if that was possible), I myself stated I don't believe it is possible to have this but if it did exist it would be incredibly useful for the reliability of the service whilst still providing the ever so useful link through the core.

 

[mmh]

Presumably it would be feasible to terminate some trains from the south at some of those destinations, in lieu of to the GN. Since it’s allegedly now suddenly so impossible to terminate trains at the likes of London Bridge.

Allegedly is right. The whole premise behind reducing the terminating platforms at London Bridge was they'd be far less used and would become a bit of a backwater. The design of the station reinforced that, with each pair of the through platforms having 4 escalators and a lift while the previously large terminal platforms became narrow with a single escalator running in the "peak" direction (on a good day), and a single inconveniently located lift for 6 platforms which makes you double back on yourself and fight against the incoming flow of passengers.

Having said that, those remaining 6 platforms coped perfectly well for years with more services than they see now (um, including the Thameslink Brighton service) so I don't know where the idea they're already at capacity comes from.

 

[physics34]

I still fail to see how Caterham / Tattenham trains worked in the Thameslink timetable - as I recall Tattenham was all day from Cambridge and Caterham peaks from Welwyn - neither of these trains are currently running through the Core.

Would an extra path on the East Croydon to Purley stretch have been needed (noting the congestion issues on this route) or would one of these routes had fewer services?

Also i think..they would have to be 8 car max from caterham and tatt.... so no flexibility of splitting or attaching and of course they couldnt have 10 cars.

 

[JonathanH]

Oh my goodness I should have proof read! Sorry by southbound I meant services coming from the South. I was getting so carried away when writing this in my head I forgot to use the right terms and actually talk sense!!

Just to clarify:
Services from East Grinstead / Littlehampton terminate at West Hampstead ThamesLink or Kentish Town to provide a better use of capacity
Some services from northwards destinations such as Cambridge and Peterborough, but not all, could terminate at a station close to the Southern end of the core (someone mentioned Grove Park sidings if that was possible), I myself stated I don't believe it is possible to have this but if it did exist it would be incredibly useful for the reliability of the service whilst still providing the ever so useful link through the core.

This seems to fail to grasp the idea that some people actually need to get through London and out the other side - maybe not every day - but through trains make this much easier.

Even with terminal stations, Victoria a prime example, 12 car trains come in from the coast and return to the coast - how is this different to a Littlehampton train going to Bedford and a Bedford train going to Littlehampton with much less downtime than if they were at a terminal station.

 

[Steve Harris]

Oh my goodness I should have proof read! Sorry by southbound I meant services coming from the South. I was getting so carried away when writing this in my head I forgot to use the right terms and actually talk sense!!

Just to clarify:
Services from East Grinstead / Littlehampton terminate at West Hampstead ThamesLink or Kentish Town to provide a better use of capacity
Some services from northwards destinations such as Cambridge and Peterborough, but not all, could terminate at a station close to the Southern end of the core (someone mentioned Grove Park sidings if that was possible), I myself stated I don't believe it is possible to have this but if it did exist it would be incredibly useful for the reliability of the service whilst still providing the ever so useful link through the core.

That would of been me! lol

I have managed to dig out my track/qual map and looking at how the lines are layed out, Grove Park is doable compared to turning using Selhurst.

As i said i don't know if there is available capacity/pathing to Hither Green (which would be the best place to terminate if there is the staff there to turf anyone off).

Edited after proof read, after being posted.

 

[Steve Harris]

This seems to fail to grasp the idea that some people actually need to get through London and out the other side - maybe not every day - but through trains make this much easier.

Even with terminal stations, Victoria a prime example, 12 car trains come in from the coast and return to the coast - how is this different to a Littlehampton train going to Bedford and a Bedford train going to Littlehampton with much less downtime than if they were at a terminal station.

I dont think anyone is failing to grasp anything. But the plan of running through the core is currently simply not working and some people on here are discussing if it would be a better idea to run through the core and terminate the other side, closer to London, meaning less chance of delays expanding and being able to run a more sustainable service/timetable.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I dont think anyone is failing to grasp anything. But the plan of running through the core is currently simply not working and some people on here are discussing if it would be a better idea to run through the core and terminate the other side, closer to London, meaning less chance of delays expanding and being able to run a more sustainable service/timetable.

But why isn't it working? No drivers are trained on the route.

I think this is the problem with the large majority of TL criticism. Your idea would still be subject to delays as drivers simply don't have the route knowledge yet.

 

[jon0844]

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.

Right back to when the preview services ran there was an understanding that trains couldn't divert easily into the Cross.. and would be cancelled at Finsbury Park. Now it seems that isn't the case either and the trains must continue on, regardless of the chaos caused.

Caping these trains seems like the only way to fix things until a driver can go all the way on his/her own.

 

[Steve Harris]

But why isn't it working? No drivers are trained on the route.

I think this is the problem with the large majority of TL criticism. Your idea would still be subject to delays as drivers simply don't have the route knowledge yet.

True.

But surely it is quicker to train a driver on 10 miles of route compared to 50 or 60?

Meaning a shorter time to when a sustainable timetable can be run.

The only delay would be in how long to train 10 miles which would still be shorter in time than the time its going to currently take. Is it or is it not ??

 

[bramling]

But why isn't it working? No drivers are trained on the route.

I think this is the problem with the large majority of TL criticism. Your idea would still be subject to delays as drivers simply don't have the route knowledge yet.

It’s not just the driver issue. There’s clearly insufficient resilience, and some stations suffer badly when they rely on solely a half-hourly Thameslink service. Also then infrastructure and operations setup simply can’t support this - this is why things have gone from bad to meltdown.

It’s very obvious how it should have been done - new services on top of the existing frequency as far as possible, utilising a separate pool of staff prepared in advance. It’s totally crazy it wasn’t done that way.

 

[700007]

This seems to fail to grasp the idea that some people actually need to get through London and out the other side - maybe not every day - but through trains make this much easier.

Even with terminal stations, Victoria a prime example, 12 car trains come in from the coast and return to the coast - how is this different to a Littlehampton train going to Bedford and a Bedford train going to Littlehampton with much less downtime than if they were at a terminal station.

Don't get me wrong! I absolutely love the idea of through trains all the way to Horsham, Ashford International and Brighton! I just think that for the sake of reliability that some but not all trains should just get past the core but not really go much further or always have that as a back up option in disruption periods.

However I would advocate that if such infrastructure did exist, in some cases it does, then have the peak time only services such as ex-East Grinstead and ex-Littlehampton cut at Kentish Town or West Hampstead ThamesLink instead of unnecessarily going all the way to Bedford.

 

[bramling]

Right back to when the preview services ran there was an understanding that trains couldn't divert easily into the Cross.. and would be cancelled at Finsbury Park. Now it seems that isn't the case either and the trains must continue on, regardless of the chaos caused.

Caping these trains seems like the only way to fix things until a driver can go all the way on his/her own.

I know that and you know that - we also knew the same a couple of years ago when a certain poster told us how simple it would be to divert to King’s Cross or terminate at Finsbury at zero notice. (The same person who suggested first class over a motor provides a more peaceful experience and that the GN is “simple”!)

 

[Agent_Squash]

True.

But surely it is quicker to train a driver on 10 miles of route compared to 50 or 60?

Meaning a shorter time to when a sustainable timetable can be run.

The only delay would be in how long to train 10 miles which would still be shorter in time than the time its going to currently take. Is it or is it not ??

Which requires more units - the 700 fleet is just enough to deliver the 2020 timetable.