Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[gingerheid]

Lots of "due to shortage of train crew" announcements today

 

[87015]

Indeed this was the plan until some idiot of a MP decided they didn't like it

A alternative plan would be for the peak only Southern services that currently run between London Bridge and the Sutton/Wimbledon Loop would be to have them extended to London Blackfriars using the bays there for example: 2W52 17:38 Sutton (Surrey) to London Bridge would terminate at London Blackfriars at 18:39 and then form 2F53 18:58 London Bridge to London Victoria departing London Blackfriars at 18:51 so yes there is about 10 minutes turnaround time at London Blackfriars.

This would mean that the likes of St Albans and Wimbledon keep their though services.

Idiot MP? Imagine representing what the passenger have had and want to continue rather than GTR demanding what’s easiest for them - that’s before the leak that where it terminates isn’t actually relevant... there are more than enough crossovers to join up anything to anything.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I’m pretty sure the medium term plan is to run Southern services between London Bridge & Blackfriars via the Sutton Loop. Terminating Southerns at Wimbledon is a temporary thing. Can’t remember where I last saw it though, it was in some sort of GTR consultation brief or similar...

You cannot terminate in the bays at Blackfriars if coming from London Bridge - you can only do that if coming from Elephant

 

[swt_passenger]

You cannot terminate in the bays at Blackfriars if coming from London Bridge - you can only do that if coming from Elephant

But I didn’t write that they would be going through London Bridge. “Via the Sutton Loop” is what I put, explained further in the later post 5011.

 

[Surreytraveller]

But I didn’t write that they would be going through London Bridge. “Via the Sutton Loop” is what I put, explained further in the later post 5011.

I didn't say that you did

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't say that you did

So did you reply to the wrong post?

 

[ComUtoR]

I’m pretty sure the medium term plan is to run Southern services between London Bridge & Blackfriars via the Sutton Loop.

I must admit. This does imply that the service runs through London Bridge. However, there is nothing stopping any service terminating at Blackfriars and then running ECS to Smithfield and back out or even changing ends on the platform.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I must admit. This does imply that the service runs through London Bridge. However, there is nothing stopping any service terminating at Blackfriars and then running ECS to Smithfield and back out or even changing ends on the platform.

Since the platform humps have been installed in platforms 1&2 at Blackfriars for level access, all stock except 700s are now barred from using the through platforms at Blackfriars. Although it is feasible to run to and from Smithfield, coming back out requires a fair distance travelling on the up line in the down direction before crossing back over, so it is preferred not to do that move. Nothing is simple, and there is always a reason why something obvious cannot be done!

 

[swt_passenger]

I must admit. This does imply that the service runs through London Bridge. However, there is nothing stopping any service terminating at Blackfriars and then running ECS to Smithfield and back out or even changing ends on the platform.

But most of us know that since the London Bridge rebuild Southern are limited to the low level station for all normal purposes, and the route towards Blackfriars is effectively a Thameslink dedicated line.

 

[ComUtoR]

Since the platform humps have been installed in platforms 1&2 at Blackfriars for level access

The restriction came in after an "incident", not due to the humps. There are also humps at London Bridge and whilst Networkers do have a restriction, they are still allowed to stop if required.

The hump situation is certainly frustrating.

 

[Kanrakuq]

Send the busiest commuter train of the morning down from Peterborough into London without actually stopping to pick any passengers up, nah, that would never happen.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64291/2018/10/29/advanced

 

[hwl]

I must admit. This does imply that the service runs through London Bridge. However, there is nothing stopping any service terminating at Blackfriars and then running ECS to Smithfield and back out or even changing ends on the platform.

The plan is/was to run London Bridge Bays - Sutton Loop - Blackfriars Bays and V/V using 377s/455s using up 2tph of the 8tph the Blackfriars bays can handle. It is course reliant on other TL services running as intended.

 

[Failed Unit]

Send the busiest commuter train of the morning down from Peterborough into London without actually stopping to pick any passengers up, nah, that would never happen.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64291/2018/10/29/advanced

Remember this is GTR. Customers are an operational inconvenience. They need to get this train to its destination on time. Irrespective of who is inconvenienced.

 

[greatkingrat]

Send the busiest commuter train of the morning down from Peterborough into London without actually stopping to pick any passengers up, nah, that would never happen.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W64291/2018/10/29/advanced

The 0654 left 30L, the 0724 was on time. What would be the point of running two trains with identical calling patterns virtually simultaneously? Seems sensible to get the Peterborough passengers on the 0654 and leave the 0724 empty for the intermediate stations.

 

[Aictos]

The 0654 left 30L, the 0724 was on time. What would be the point of running two trains with identical calling patterns virtually simultaneously? Seems sensible to get the Peterborough passengers on the 0654 and leave the 0724 empty for the intermediate stations.

Indeed that was the best decision to make as it makes no sense to to run two trains with identical calling patterns so close together plus you have to consider both the impact on the next working such as would it have a late start and if so what do you do to get it back to running right time not to mention it has to meet it's slot though the Core without impacting on other services too much.

So I don't think GTR did the wrong thing far from it under the circumstances they did the right thing.

 

[bramling]

Indeed that was the best decision to make as it makes no sense to to run two trains with identical calling patterns so close together plus you have to consider both the impact on the next working such as would it have a late start and if so what do you do to get it back to running right time not to mention it has to meet it's slot though the Core without impacting on other services too much.

So I don't think GTR did the wrong thing far from it under the circumstances they did the right thing.

Depends. Off-peak the move would definitely be the right decision. However 12 cars worth of train in the peak flow direction at the height of the high peak is a lot of capacity to lose.

Ideally it would have been better to run the train as booked as far as London, then look to sort it out the other side of the river, ideally by turning it short. However this of course depends on what the driver was booked to do.

 

[Aictos]

Depends. Off-peak the move would definitely be the right decision. However 12 cars worth of train in the peak flow direction at the height of the high peak is a lot of capacity to lose.

Ideally it would have been better to run the train as booked as far as London, then look to sort it out the other side of the river, ideally by turning it short. However this of course depends on what the driver was booked to do.

But the capacity was only lost between Huntingdon and Stevenage for some passengers as for Huntingdon and St Neots passengers they had the 0720 and the 0730 departures to use, for Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlesey, Hitchin and Stevenage passengers they had the 0740 off Huntingdon to use which would have arrived just mins after the delayed 0711 off Huntingdon so you would have had the 0711 not gaining any time back and the 0740 hardly picking anyone up as the 0711 would have done so.

That is just a waste of resources as ideally you would run the 0711 fast to regain some time and try to run it right time as soon as possible and instead have the 0740 pick up passengers between St Neots and Stevenage which more or less was what GTR did and what I believe was the right decision to make.

Now I'm just being realistic here and I'm in no way a GTR fan but I'm seeing the bigger picture.

As to turning it short I don't think that was the right way to do it as least this way they tried to get it start it's next working from Horsham right time.

 

[bramling]

But the capacity was only lost between Huntingdon and Stevenage for some passengers as for Huntingdon and St Neots passengers they had the 0720 and the 0730 departures to use, for Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlesey, Hitchin and Stevenage passengers they had the 0740 off Huntingdon to use which would have arrived just mins after the delayed 0711 off Huntingdon so you would have had the 0711 not gaining any time back and the 0740 hardly picking anyone up as the 0711 would have done so.

That is just a waste of resources as ideally you would run the 0711 fast to regain some time and try to run it right time as soon as possible and instead have the 0740 pick up passengers between St Neots and Stevenage which more or less was what GTR did and what I believe was the right decision to make.

Now I'm just being realistic here and I'm in no way a GTR fan but I'm seeing the bigger picture.

As to turning it short I don't think that was the right way to do it as least this way they tried to get it start it's next working from Horsham right time.

Don’t agree. A few day trippers from Horsham shouldn’t take priority over a high-peak service. However, it really all depends on the driver diagrams - as if booked a crew relief at Horsham (for example) then turning short wouldn’t be an option anyway. Rule number one of any railway should be to protect the high peak services - it’s all very well saying there are other services however these may well have been heavily loaded. The punters don’t just evaporate when a delay happens!

The old GN timetable used to nicely facilitate letting the peak run, and then sorting things out afterwards. Many diagrams had a decent long layover scheduled somewhere to give some recovery opportunity. Part of the difficulty with the Thameslink service is it just runs a continuous pattern right through the day, so intervention becomes necessary after quite small delays. They would really benefit from much longer train and driver layovers at each end - although is there the platform space to do it?

 

[Kanrakuq]

The 0654 left 30L, the 0724 was on time. What would be the point of running two trains with identical calling patterns virtually simultaneously? Seems sensible to get the Peterborough passengers on the 0654 and leave the 0724 empty for the intermediate stations.

I wasn't suggesting the two trains should have tailgated each other down the line, just think it wouldn't have been asking much for the late-running train to stop at the stations unfortunate-enough to only get 2tph, to stop there being an hour-long gap in the middle of rush hour. Surely would only have added a couple of minutes.

A London-bound commuter train skipping every platform full of commuters going into London so it can "be on time" when it gets to London is completely ridiculous. Kafka's books weren't supposed to be guides.

 

[Aictos]

Don’t agree. A few day trippers from Horsham shouldn’t take priority over a high-peak service. However, it really all depends on the driver diagrams - as if booked a crew relief at Horsham (for example) then turning short wouldn’t be an option anyway. Rule number one of any railway should be to protect the high peak services - it’s all very well saying there are other services however these may well have been heavily loaded. The punters don’t just evaporate when a delay happens!

The old GN timetable used to nicely facilitate letting the peak run, and then sorting things out afterwards. Many diagrams had a decent long layover scheduled somewhere to give some recovery opportunity. Part of the difficulty with the Thameslink service is it just runs a continuous pattern right through the day, so intervention becomes necessary after quite small delays. They would really benefit from much longer train and driver layovers at each end - although is there the platform space to do it?

I disagree, it's still a high-peak service just run in the contra flow direction away from London which doesn't have a few day trippers as you claimed, the service could well be as busy from London to Horsham as it is from Peterborough to London.

As to claiming passengers don’t just evaporate when a delay happens! Well that's a childish thing to say as of course not, they do however get the next available service and as I explained above which you failed to understand is using your method the delayed 0711 would have been further delayed heading into London and the 0740 would hardly be picking anyone up as these passengers would have got the first train that came in this case the delayed 0711 so no I don't think the delayed 0711 should have ran as booked.

GTR did the right thing because passengers do get the next available service that comes, it's not rocket science and the way that GTR did it they not only reduced the delay to the 0711 by running it partly fast which by the way does count as a failure in the performance stats which neither you or other posters have picked up on but they also tried to insure that it didn't have a knock on effect on it's next working.

 

[bramling]

I disagree, it's still a high-peak service just run in the contra flow direction away from London which doesn't have a few day trippers as you claimed, the service could well be as busy from London to Horsham as it is from Peterborough to London.

There's no way a service down to Horsham is going to be as busy as on the Peterborough-London leg. There might be a flow to Crawley, although again the main flow here will be from London, Clapham Junction and East Croydon, who have 2tph Southern service IIRC.

As to claiming passengers don’t just evaporate when a delay happens! Well that's a childish thing to say as of course not, they do however get the next available service

Please cut the insults; it's a perfectly valid and reasonable metaphor to make the point that the passengers are still there to be carried regardless of what's done with the service.

You're missing the point. Yes they get the next available service, however the fact remains that 24 cars worth of capacity has now been halved to 12 -- minus anyone lucky enough to be travelling from Peterborough, although wouldn't most of them be using the faster 365/387 services anyway?

So the point stands that 12 cars worth of important high-peak London capacity has been removed from Huntington, St Neots, Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlesey, Hitchin and Stevenage. The only justification I can see for this is if the driver being late would impact on multiple other services.

In fact, if one looks at the bigger picture as you advocate, it seems 2C11 0657 Cambridge-KX was cancelled. This means two consecutive London services at Hitchin were effectively cancelled - the 0734 to KX and the 0741 to Horsham. So that's now 20 cars worth of capacity to London missing, right smack-bang at the busiest time. I don't think that can be regarded as a good outcome by *any* measure, and certainly can't be justified on the basis of contra-peak journeys south of the river IMO.

and as I explained above which you failed to understand is using your method the delayed 0711 would have been further delayed heading into London and the 0740 would hardly be picking anyone up as these passengers would have got the first train that came in this case the delayed 0711 so no I don't think the delayed 0711 should have ran as booked.

A big assumption is being made there, which is that everybody would have all piled onto the first train. Yes, some would, however others would wait for their planned service in the knowledge that they would have more chance of a seat / being able to board.

GTR did the right thing because passengers do get the next available service that comes,

And will find it rather busier than it should have been. So the effect of this upon the passengers will be less chance of a seat, or perhaps less chance of being able to board. Both negative outcomes.

it's not rocket science and the way that GTR did it they not only reduced the delay to the 0711 by running it partly fast which by the way does count as a failure in the performance stats which neither you or other posters have picked up on but they also tried to insure that it didn't have a knock on effect on it's next working.

I don't think the passengers negatively affected would be worrying too much whether or not performance figures were affected. The more pressing consequence would be a delay on a cold platform, then having a 12-car train's worth of capacity taken away from them at a busy time of day. Turning the train at somewhere like Three Bridges would be guaranteed to have inconvenienced fewer people, and even better if perhaps an Arun Valley service could have made a couple of additional stops to cover.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

my thoughts on this latest "thameslink farce" debate....

A service was half hr late on a half hrly headway. The company had 2 real choices to restore the service- either run the late train "light" to a place where it can recover it's normal schedule or to run it 30 mins late hoping it will make up some time and then turn it short at the other end to restore it to it's schedule. Now the general tone of the debate seems to be "how dare GTR remove a train from Peterborough, Huntingdon etc".... well what about the passengers who will be there at the other end when the service doesn't show up there because it's been turned short? don't they deserve the same consideration?

Fact is, if the service was 30 mins late on a 30 min headway there was absolutely no point in running it as scheduled as it wouldn't be able to gain any time back and would only impede the progress of the service that is about to depart on time following exactly the same stopping pattern...

Now while bus companies will sometimes run a very late bus in normal service right in front of the next one during peak times there is a big problem with doing so with a train... unlike on the buses trains cannot leapfrog each other at "stops" nor can you squeese 2 trains onto one "stop".

Therefore in this case, and it pains me to say this, Thameslink made the right decision in this case

 

[Aictos]

There's no way a service down to Horsham is going to be as busy as on the Peterborough-London leg. There might be a flow to Crawley, although again the main flow here will be from London, Clapham Junction and East Croydon, who have 2tph Southern service IIRC.

How do YOU know that the London to Horsham service is going to be far more quieter then the Peterborough to London leg?

Again you're making assumptions...

Please cut the insults; it's a perfectly valid and reasonable metaphor to make the point that the passengers are still there to be carried regardless of what's done with the service.

What insults? I was merely challenging your view regardless of what the metaphor was!

You're missing the point. Yes they get the next available service, however the fact remains that 24 cars worth of capacity has now been halved to 12 -- minus anyone lucky enough to be travelling from Peterborough, although wouldn't most of them be using the faster 365/387 services anyway?

I'm not missing the point at all, you are as I will explain further down the line pun intended!

So the point stands that 12 cars worth of important high-peak London capacity has been removed from Huntington, St Neots, Sandy, Biggleswade, Arlesey, Hitchin and Stevenage. The only justification I can see for this is if the driver being late would impact on multiple other services.

You're forgetting that for passengers at Huntingdon and St Neots they actually had 2 other services within 20 minutes one actually calling 10 minutes after the cancelled Horsham service so it makes sense that they would have boarded these services then just 30 minutes later they had another Horsham service so not a total disaster as you are trying to claim.

You also forget that it's not just the driver being late that would impact on other services, the unit itself being late would impact on other services as it wouldn't be where it was meant to be to start it's next service and being so late would impact on other services down the line pun again intended.

A big assumption is being made there, which is that everybody would have all piled onto the first train. Yes, some would, however others would wait for their planned service in the knowledge that they would have more chance of a seat / being able to board.

No assumption being made, people WILL board the first service that comes along and you forget that the Class 700 can move far more people then previous rolling stock used so the argument that they wouldn't be able to board it is null and void.

A minority might wait for another service but they are in the minority, the vast majority will get the first train that comes.

And will find it rather busier than it should have been. So the effect of this upon the passengers will be less chance of a seat, or perhaps less chance of being able to board. Both negative outcomes.

Again see what I have put above as yes the train will be slightly busier then usual but certainly able to board which wouldn't have happened using other rolling stock such as the Class 365.

I don't think the passengers negatively affected would be worrying too much whether or not performance figures were affected. The more pressing consequence would be a delay on a cold platform, then having a 12-car train's worth of capacity taken away from them at a busy time of day. Turning the train at somewhere like Three Bridges would be guaranteed to have inconvenienced fewer people, and even better if perhaps an Arun Valley service could have made a couple of additional stops to cover.

You make it sound like there are no facilities available at any GN station, again you fail to grasp the fact that regardless of how GTR ran the service this morning, it does count as a failure and that is important.

Huntingdon, St Neots both had 3 trains within 30 minutes of the cancelled Horsham train while Biggleswade had 2 trains within 30 minutes of the cancelled Horsham train so the only losers this morning were Sandy and Arlesey and they had another service just 30 mins later so I can't see the issue.

The likes of Hitchin and Stevenage can always board a service coming from Cambridge/Royston etc so they are not affected as badly as you might like to think.

my thoughts on this latest "thameslink farce" debate....

A service was half hr late on a half hrly headway. The company had 2 real choices to restore the service- either run the late train "light" to a place where it can recover it's normal schedule or to run it 30 mins late hoping it will make up some time and then turn it short at the other end to restore it to it's schedule. Now the general tone of the debate seems to be "how dare GTR remove a train from Peterborough, Huntingdon etc".... well what about the passengers who will be there at the other end when the service doesn't show up there because it's been turned short? don't they deserve the same consideration?

Fact is, if the service was 30 mins late on a 30 min headway there was absolutely no point in running it as scheduled as it wouldn't be able to gain any time back and would only impede the progress of the service that is about to depart on time following exactly the same stopping pattern...

Now while bus companies will sometimes run a very late bus in normal service right in front of the next one during peak times there is a big problem with doing so with a train... unlike on the buses trains cannot leapfrog each other at "stops" nor can you squeese 2 trains onto one "stop".

Therefore in this case, and it pains me to say this, Thameslink made the right decision in this case

Thank you, you've pretty much nailed why GTR made the right choice this morning!

 

[Fred26]

This is a waste of a discussion. Decisions like this will always split people. It ends up being argument for the sake of argument.

 

[Aictos]

This is a waste of a discussion. Decisions like this will always split people. It ends up being argument for the sake of argument.

Indeed some people seem to take every opportunity to slate GTR even when they actually make the right choice.

For these travelling from Stevenage for example if their service from the Cambridge line is delayed or cancelled they can always get the next one even if it's from the Peterborough line, it really isn't the end of the world.

It would be far far worse if it was a hourly service and they had a cancellation resulting in a 2 hour gap in service which has happened on the Hertford Loop a few times no doubt.

 

[westcoaster]

Since the platform humps have been installed in platforms 1&2 at Blackfriars for level access, all stock except 700s are now barred from using the through platforms at Blackfriars. Although it is feasible to run to and from Smithfield, coming back out requires a fair distance travelling on the up line in the down direction before crossing back over, so it is preferred not to do that move. Nothing is simple, and there is always a reason why something obvious cannot be done!

The only stock allowed north of blackfriars through the core is now 700's,377 &387's.

 

[Aictos]

The only stock allowed north of blackfriars through the core is now 700's,377 &387's.

Strange I thought it was just 700s nowadays that were allowed in the Core, still as you sign the Core I bow to your better knowledge.

 

[bramling]

my thoughts on this latest "thameslink farce" debate....

A service was half hr late on a half hrly headway. The company had 2 real choices to restore the service- either run the late train "light" to a place where it can recover it's normal schedule or to run it 30 mins late hoping it will make up some time and then turn it short at the other end to restore it to it's schedule. Now the general tone of the debate seems to be "how dare GTR remove a train from Peterborough, Huntingdon etc".... well what about the passengers who will be there at the other end when the service doesn't show up there because it's been turned short? don't they deserve the same consideration?

There's a difference between removing a key morning-peak London-bound commuter service from seven extremely busy stations (two of which were already experiencing loss of capacity due to an unrelated cancellation), and removing a mid-morning service from Horsham, Littlehaven, Ifield and Crawley. The return service, 9J26, is in any case booked to be preceded by 1C19 to Victoria just five minutes earlier and booked to call at Crawley, so if the up service from Littlehaven and Ifield is so important at 1000 in the morning then a couple of extra stops could perhaps have considered for that service (which had already missed its path anyway as it happens).

At that time of day it's not about putting the jigsaw pieces in the right place, it's about doing everything possible to maintain the required capacity on the key flows. We hear so much about how the Thameslink Programme is about capacity after all!

The *only* justification for making that decision is if it was going to displace the crewing to the extent that the driver would then have been late for another service, or that a crew relief was required at Horsham in which case there would be no option but to run through.

Even just a cursory look through the station usage figures shows its own story. The combined usage for the seven stations north of Stevenage is over *five times* greater than for Crawley, Ifield and Littlehaven. That's why these passengers don't deserve the same level of consideration - there simply aren't anything like as many of them, even before considering the difference between 0730 and 1000.

In all honesty I'm actually slightly astounded at the lack of awareness of how much trouble will be caused by a half-hour gap in the London service at somewhere like Hitchin at 0730 on a weekday morning.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There's a difference between removing a key morning-peak London-bound commuter service from seven extremely busy stations (two of which were already experiencing loss of capacity due to an unrelated cancellation), and removing a mid-morning service from Horsham, Littlehaven, Ifield and Crawley. The return service, 9J26, is in any case booked to be preceded by 1C19 to Victoria just five minutes earlier and booked to call at Crawley, so if the up service from Littlehaven and Ifield is so important at 1000 in the morning then a couple of extra stops could perhaps have considered for that service (which had already missed its path anyway as it happens).

At that time of day it's not about putting the jigsaw pieces in the right place, it's about doing everything possible to maintain the required capacity on the key flows. We hear so much about how the Thameslink Programme is about capacity after all!

The *only* justification for making that decision is if it was going to displace the crewing to the extent that the driver would then have been late for another service, or that a crew relief was required at Horsham in which case there would be no option but to run through.

Even just a cursory look through the station usage figures shows its own story. The combined usage for the seven stations north of Stevenage is over *five times* greater than for Crawley, Ifield and Littlehaven. That's why these passengers don't deserve the same level of consideration - there simply aren't anything like as many of them, even before considering the difference between 0730 and 1000.

In all honesty I'm actually slightly astounded at the lack of awareness of how much trouble will be caused by a half-hour gap in the London service at somewhere like Hitchin at 0730 on a weekday morning.

and how would you propose running 2 trains at exactly the same time? considering you can't leapfrog or squeese 2 trains onto 1 platform? It's the same principle as on the buses really... if GTR had sent the 2 trains one behind the other then everyone would be slating them for that.... just as in the bus industry, in this situation {a train running on the next one's timing} GTR were between a rock and a hard place

 

[bramling]

and how would you propose running 2 trains at exactly the same time? considering you can't leapfrog or squeese 2 trains onto 1 platform? It's the same principle as on the buses really... if GTR had sent the 2 trains one behind the other then everyone would be slating them for that.... just as in the bus industry, in this situation {a train running on the next one's timing} GTR were between a rock and a hard place

Simple - they just follow each other. We're talking about a route with multi-aspect signalling capable of running a reasonably close headway, not some rural route with a signal box every few miles.

I don't think anyone would be slating them for running two trains close behind each other. On the contrary, people would see that another train is scheduled close behind and there would be less of a scrum to board the first one.

On the GN side there would have been the option of the first service omitting Hitchin and Stevenage, so it could have been turned out onto the up fast at Cadwell, relieving the pressure on the single up platform at Hitchin. A fast run from Cadwell to London could then ensue, with the second, emptier, train then soaking up the half hour's worth of demand from Hitchin and Stevenage. That would have been the ideal resolution.