That would have required DfT to order more stock though!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018
- Thread starter blakey1152
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
samuelmorris
Established Member
Yes it would, but that's not totally out of the question, nor is descoping the service intervals to suit the fleet they ordered.
bramling
Veteran Member
That doesn't really follow. Yes the longer distance operators generally have longer turnrounds, but they also generally operate far longer journeys. Inverness to King's Cross is a little longer than Peterborough to King's Cross after all.
The old setup allowed many minor delays to be naturally absorbed, as well as giving more options to sort out more significant operating issues.
bramling
Veteran Member
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
If you class "GTR" as a suburban operator , then their terminal planning turn rounds are always going to be shorter than a main inter-city operator for obvious reasons. I/C services generally need tanking, buffet stocking . labelling as well as internal cleaning. Thus around 30+ mins is the norm , though in a few instances 20 mins suffices for the lesser distance services. Not that many of those to be honest.
Maybe the well known 7 min or so turnarounds at Charing Cross is a bit on the tight side - but somewhere in the middle feels about right. Of course if more (expensive) vehicles are needed to increase terminal time , then the railway is deemed to be inefficient.
Maybe the well known 7 min or so turnarounds at Charing Cross is a bit on the tight side - but somewhere in the middle feels about right. Of course if more (expensive) vehicles are needed to increase terminal time , then the railway is deemed to be inefficient.
bramling
Veteran Member
Naturally it would help a lot. It wouldn't stop delays happening in the first place of course, but would help limit the consequential effects. Needless to say it would require more trains in service, the infrastructure hasn't been provided to support it (Cambridge in particular seems to be on a knife-edge from May as it is), and is only useful if the driver diagrams are similarly padded - and we've seen already that there's barely enough drivers to run things as it is.
Bull in a china shop springs to mind.
bramling
Veteran Member
At the end of the day the cost of providing longer turnrounds should have been accepted as a necessary part of making the proposed service work reliably. If not, then things should have been done differently - there are, after all, perfectly good trains sitting stored in sidings in Crewe, so hard to argue that lack of trains is the primary issue.
Failed Unit
Established Member
The ic operators don’t miss out stops either (unless the station is closed of course)
But when you look at the service pre May 2018. The Welwyn service was self contained. Alternating between Cambridge and Peterborough. About 15 mins turnaround at KX. Now it is still self contained. Has about 30 mins turnaround at at KX. Lots more padding at stations like Finsbury Park and WGC.
But pre-May very rarely did the service miss stations. Now. It is a very frequent occurrence. Why is that. Longer journey time, more dwell time and longer turn around but it still is more unrealisable than previously.
Transforming travel for good.
Last edited:
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
The ic operators don’t miss out stops either (unless the station is closed of course)
But when you look at the service pre May 2018. The Welwyn service was self contained. Alternating between Cambridge and Peterborough. About 15 mins turnaround at KX. Now it is still self contained. Has about 30 mins turnaround at at KX. Lots more padding at stations like Finsbury Park and WGC.
But pre-May very rarely did the service miss stations. Now. It is a very frequent occurrence. Why is that. Longer journey time, more dwell time and longer turn around but it still is more unrealisable than previously.
Transforming travel for good.
Sounds pretty damning - but what one does not know is how the train crews are diagrammed for this service "group". I must admit that the old GN , 4 tph off peak service , alternating PBO and CGE was neat , clever and robust. Something to do with the experts who implemented it , quite cleverly , along with what they did in WAGN days in NE London.
bramling
Veteran Member
It has to be said the London National Express group of franchises did seem to know what they were doing in regards to making their timetable work. Having said that, I believe that particular service pattern originated in Prism days, or possibly even as part of the preceding shadow franchise.
Under National Express there was no need for apps and the like - the trains pretty much without fail turned up to the second.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
It was the "Prism" era. WAGN kept the "group" afloat until they sold to NX. Their timetabling was pretty damn good to be fair. Elegant even. Robust. Economic. Credible.
Shame this particular Timetable leader retired about 2 years ago ....but then he had more than done his bit. We all have to let the railway go sometime.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I am not sure which operator did it but in the past (about 20 years ago) you did sometimes have a train and no driver and vice versa. Then someone decided to keep train and drivers together where possible. This continued with the high levels of reliability we experienced until may 2018.
At times the 1220 arrived 20 mins late. The 1236 departed 8 mins late and stopped at all its booked stops. Somehow this didn’t magnify through the day.
I know I don’t know the driver diagrams. But I will never understand why let’s say the 1221 leaves kings cross 10 minutes late why it is now fast to Stevenage? Why put in the 5 mins dwell at Finsbury Park, the 3 mins at WGC and have longer sectional times if you are going to skip at the smallest delay.
bramling
Veteran Member
My only criticism of WAGN was that they had a habit of diagramming everything bar the bare minimum as 4-car units only. Even then this led to some pretty bad overcrowding on certain off-peak services. National Express started to rectify this, FCC went further, and to be fair GTR went even further so that most of the semi-fast Cambridge/Peterborough off-peak services ran as 8-cars.
I seem to remember Prism did also have some pretty bad driver shortages, again rectified under National Express IIRC.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Agreed Prism were tight on finances , but NX certainly polished things up a bit. FCC and I suppose GTR more so , were a bit better on off peak strengthening , but frankly the stupid mechanics of "vehicle mile caps" on rolling stock leases was the architect on that , not the operator , who if they were shouted at, would do something to alleviate it. FCC to be fair on the GN were very good at off peak special events traffics - the Knebworths and Arsenal scenarios. .....
I carefully put in the comment on driver diagrams - sticking with the inwards stock , clearly costs more , but is inherently more robust. Generally.
What has happened on the GN is tragic. We had such a superb, generally very reliable service to Kings Cross on well kept fit for purpose rolling stock which has been ruined since May.
Apologies if my questions are answered above, but I'm reluctant to read all 197 pages of this thread. I'm planning to go to Cambridge and back with a bicycle the weekend after next -- out on Sat 2nd Feb in the middle of the day, back on Sunday 3rd in the early evening. I won't be in a particular hurry, but on the Saturday I may have arrangements to meet friends in Cambridge at a particular time, and on the Sunday I will be travelling out of London again on an hourly service (not one that requires bike reservations, though) from Paddington; also, I don't want to find myself trying to force my bike onto a train which is crowded enough for this to be anti-social.
It appears from the pdf timetables on the Great Northern website that the planned service is more or less that shown in the printed GB timetable: Kings Cross to Cambridge on the Saturday has an hourly fast, hourly slow, and hourly semi-fast overtaken by the fast, and Cambridge to Kings Cross on the Sunday has much the same except that it's the slow that's overtaken by the fast and there's an extra fast at 18.43. Can anyone tell me:
a) Is it safe to assume that most of this service will be running? (travelling to Cambridge, I presume I don't need to worry about skip-stopping!)
b) Or should I check NRE? (I've already looked at the engineering works page and seen that none are listed)
c) If I need to check NRE, how close to the date of travel does this need to be to minimise the risk of being caught out by last-minute amendments?
d) Or would it be a more reliable option to cycle a bit further across London and travel on Greater Anglia from Liverpool Street?
Also, not related to my forthcoming journey, last summer's GBTT, which I presume shows the service that was supposed to run from May, only has hourly fast trains between London and Cambridge, whereas I'm sure they used to be half-hourly. Was this cut in the fast service always part of the plan? Was it/is it intended to be permanent?
It appears from the pdf timetables on the Great Northern website that the planned service is more or less that shown in the printed GB timetable: Kings Cross to Cambridge on the Saturday has an hourly fast, hourly slow, and hourly semi-fast overtaken by the fast, and Cambridge to Kings Cross on the Sunday has much the same except that it's the slow that's overtaken by the fast and there's an extra fast at 18.43. Can anyone tell me:
a) Is it safe to assume that most of this service will be running? (travelling to Cambridge, I presume I don't need to worry about skip-stopping!)
b) Or should I check NRE? (I've already looked at the engineering works page and seen that none are listed)
c) If I need to check NRE, how close to the date of travel does this need to be to minimise the risk of being caught out by last-minute amendments?
d) Or would it be a more reliable option to cycle a bit further across London and travel on Greater Anglia from Liverpool Street?
Also, not related to my forthcoming journey, last summer's GBTT, which I presume shows the service that was supposed to run from May, only has hourly fast trains between London and Cambridge, whereas I'm sure they used to be half-hourly. Was this cut in the fast service always part of the plan? Was it/is it intended to be permanent?
If GTR were to take on Class 707 units to provide a common fleet with 700 and 717 units, could Thameslink be expanded to include:
1. Half hourly interval service between East Croydon/Gatwick and Watford Junction/Milton Keynes - replacing Southern 377 units which could be used to strengthen other Southern services instead.
2. Additional carriages be ordered to increase units from 5-car to 8 or 12-car units with toilets provided in the additional carriages ?
3. And use these units on semi-fast GN services too.
2tph Cambridge-Brighton
2tph Peterborough-Horsham
2tph WGC-Maidstone
3tph Cambridge-KX
3tph Peterborough-KX
1. Half hourly interval service between East Croydon/Gatwick and Watford Junction/Milton Keynes - replacing Southern 377 units which could be used to strengthen other Southern services instead.
2. Additional carriages be ordered to increase units from 5-car to 8 or 12-car units with toilets provided in the additional carriages ?
3. And use these units on semi-fast GN services too.
2tph Cambridge-Brighton
2tph Peterborough-Horsham
2tph WGC-Maidstone
3tph Cambridge-KX
3tph Peterborough-KX
bramling
Veteran Member
To use them on GN would present issues. In their current form they would make up 10-car trains, which isn’t wonderfully useful as they don’t fit into 8-car berths, whilst don’t make optimal use of 12-car berths. Extending to 8 cars would mean they’re unsuitable for the 12-car Peterborough diagrams.
It might make more sense to make up the units to 8-car and 12-car 700s and simply run them as part of the existing 700 fleet - simply then running accordingly on slightly adjusted GN diagrams as part of wider Thameslink duties.
However, I can’t see anyone building extra cars and doing a rework of the fleet just to do this, assuming it’s feasible at reasonable cost in the first place of course. Also the GN 365 and 387 services are generally geared towards maximising seating, which the 365s happen to do rather well, and don’t need the dwell time capability of services which go down the core.
They would be better off trying to use the 717s as part of some cascade which achieves replacement of the Southern 455s IMO.
samuelmorris
Established Member
One thing I do notice about GTR's stop omissions - there is some degree of PPM engineering going on as you only need to save enough time to make up the rest during a shorter turnaround, but they usually bring the service back on time (unless of course hit by further delays) well before the end of the route - I often see services arriving at a stop (or a junction before a stop) 3-4 minutes early, nowhere near the end of the service, as for a 9-10 minute delay about 8 stops have been omitted which is far more than needed. I think skip stopping would be less egregious if it wasn't so exuberant...
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
I disagree to a point, the Class 707s would be far better off being used to replace or partly replace the Class 455s in South London and running these services as 10 cars which I believe some SN services are already but by using Class 377s?
Leave the Class 717s where they are on the GN as they are ideal for what they will be used on to replace the out dated Class 313s.
Also if the DfT agreed then it's always possible for extra intermediate carriages to be built to extend the 8 car Class 700s to 12 cars or authorise a second order for more Class 700s be 8 cars or 12 cars but hopefully more 12 cars.
SteveOfTheStow
Member
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 182
Just to say, the 717s need to stay put because of the emergency egress on the cabs for the NCL. Not to say that more 717s couldn't be built for use elsewhere, but then may as well build/lease some other form of Desiro City with the cheaper cab if the door isn't required.
The cabs are modular are they not? So I assume it wouldn't be ridiculous money to swap out cabs with the front egress ramp. Of course there are meant to be enough 717s for the job so this is purely hypothetical.
Far more likely at some point is 700 8 cars getting added coaches to become 12. The numbering is already done with this in mind, and I wonder if the DfT has any plans to lengthen some of the RLUs in the coming years?
Far more likely at some point is 700 8 cars getting added coaches to become 12. The numbering is already done with this in mind, and I wonder if the DfT has any plans to lengthen some of the RLUs in the coming years?
bramling
Veteran Member
Apologies, my mind wandered - I meant to write 707s. I wouldn’t advocate moving the 717s as they’re purpose built for the NCL. I’d expect them to remain their for life, unless something unforeseen happens.
The 707s were ordered with smaller traction motors and less traction electronics so don't have the same poke as 700s or 717s so would need a major rebuild to match them not just adding new coaches or reforming into different length units.
The contract includes options to lengthen the 8 car units to 10 or 12 cars.
Post May '18 TT changes the 455 are now focused on 8 car routes e.g. via Tulse Hill and less intensively used overall so now far fewer 8 car train on 10 car routes.
The Southern 455s and 313s are down for replacement in the next franchise so a combined replacement order makes sense.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Or you could just run them as they are and use them in both 5 and 10 car formations to replace/partly replace the Class 455s from London Metro work as it would bring some extra capacity to the network.
As to the maths, at the moment you have 44 3 car Class 313s being replaced by 25 6 car Class 717s so its not difficult to see the possibility of
46 4 car Class 455s being replaced by 30 5 car Class 707s.
The Class 455s could then be cascaded to the Coastway replacing the Class 313s down there.
For capacity reasons they shouldn't be run as single units. The 455s are going to the scrap heap and the Coast way could really do with SDO stock to sort out capacity and stopping issues there. A micro fleet on Southern separated from in the next franchise Thameslink isn't helpful and is unlike to be competitive on cost grounds. The maths doesn't look good.
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 377
It depends what happens with the Southeastern franchise surely it's not behind the realms of possibility to replace 313s with 375s and even consolidate the solely Coastway 377s diagrams to 375s and transfer them to Metro replacing 455s. Not sure if there would still be a shortage of available units and the spanner in the works would be lack of flexibility due to the OBS/Guard set up so a 375 cannot form a London bound service after a Coastway working, and whilst they have Guards based on the coast they would probably have to increase the headcount. The dilemma they have got is the replacements would always have to be a Microfleet as they obviously no longer make 377s or 387s.
- Status