Thameslink Southern & Great Northern Franchise

[swt_passenger]

Of course the GN remainder routes don't really need to be a different livery to former 'Southern' routes, as there's no overlap.

What I'd find very odd is if 'Thameslink' was ever re-introduced as part of the franchise's day to day 'operating name' - as it would be pretty misleading on all the routes that don't go through the core...

 

[Class377/5]

You forgot 5 & 6!

Good point!

Of course the GN remainder routes don't really need to be a different livery to former 'Southern' routes, as there's no overlap.

What I'd find very odd is if 'Thameslink' was ever re-introduced as part of the franchise's day to day 'operating name' - as it would be pretty misleading on all the routes that don't go through the core...

I disagree. The two may not overlap but when your presenting a whole network it makes more sense to define the areas separately. This is especially important with one eye to the end date and the possibility the to merging get spilt again (as hinted as a long term option to be kept open). Why not have four separate branded areas? It makes sense especially with Gatwick Express brand requiring strengthening under the ITT so is there really much difference as your going to have to order different viynals for them anyway.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

NSE managed it all quite well with route branding" on a generic base - "South London Lines" , "Sussex Coast" etc........(so why not ?)

My favourite had to be Chiltern with the rising / setting sun motif.

 

[JB25]

When it was Thameslink and they had Navy / yellow trains was that Southern owned? Or was that pre Southern?

 

[transmanche]

What I'd find very odd is if 'Thameslink' was ever re-introduced as part of the franchise's day to day 'operating name' - as it would be pretty misleading on all the routes that don't go through the core...

It may not be part of the overall TOC name, but it could well be used as the 'sub brand' for the routes that go through the core.

 

[tsr]

In the long term, I'd like to see the WLL services from South London to Milton Keynes Ctl grouped under the "Thameslink" brand, although a serious improvement in service frequency might be needed if it was to fit under said brand. Then "South Thames" for Metro services and other shorter journeys mainly in or near South London; "North Thames" for those metro-style/shorter journeys from Moorgate & Kings Cross; "Great Northern" for the longer-distance routes from Kings Cross; "Weald" for medium-distance services from London Victoria/LondonBridge/etc. to Uckfield, Horsham, and maybe Kent destinations; and "South Coast" for trains to Southampton/Portsmouth/Brighton/Hastings et al, maybe grouping in the locals which don't head into London.

You can substitute the actual naming for nicer-sounding/better alternatives, but I'd expect that to be a logical grouping. If you take all the current Southern service areas on their maps & publicity, the internal station groupings by management, the varying FCC TL/GN/shared Kent routes, and so on, you end up with a right mess, so better consistency and maybe some broader strokes of the brush are needed. (Although, in terms of operations, I can see it could be entirely feasible to allow considerable differences in regions for internal management.)

I'm not saying this hasn't been thought of. Quite the contrary. I just wonder how people might feel about what I've written. It may always be a controversial decision, but that's why boundaries and names may be worth discussing (or not ).

 

[transmanche]

When it was Thameslink and they had Navy / yellow trains was that Southern owned? Or was that pre Southern?

Thameslink was operated by GoVia from 1997 to 2006. GoVia have also operated the SouthCentral franchise since 2001 (which they rebranded as Southern in 2004).

So the same company that owns 'Southern' also used to own 'Thameslink' - but 'Southern' haven't ever owned 'Thameslink'.

 

[southern442]

The diagramming wont be made more complex if there is say four types of livery. Its would be quite natural to have say ex Southern routes in green, Thameslink in blue, GN in purple and Gatwick Express in red. The four types of stock currently run different diagrams anyway (apart from Gatwick Express but they already in two different liveries so my point stands).

You cant colour code trains as lengthens as attaching and joining will throw this out. A 377 for example can be 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cars. That's without mentions it fails disability tests as some will see colours the same (why doors have to be such a different colour).

With regards to colour coding and mixing stock up, would it be impossible to see some 377's on the ECML or on Thameslink duties? Or some odd 700's on London Victoria-Brighton or King's Cross-Cambridge etc services?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It may not be part of the overall TOC name, but it could well be used as the 'sub brand' for the routes that go through the core.

This makes me wonder if we will ever see the Sth Croydon-MK Central service branded as 'Thameslink west'

 

[Bald Rick]

Each bidder has had their own ideas about liveries, branding, and which stock goes where. All will be revealed with the winner in due course.

 

[DJL]

The diagramming wont be made more complex if there is say four types of livery. Its would be quite natural to have say ex Southern routes in green, Thameslink in blue, GN in purple and Gatwick Express in red. The four types of stock currently run different diagrams anyway (apart from Gatwick Express but they already in two different liveries so my point stands).

You cant colour code trains as lengthens as attaching and joining will throw this out. A 377 for example can be 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 cars. That's without mentions it fails disability tests as some will see colours the same (why doors have to be such a different colour).

Sorry I think you missed my point about units of the same class.

It wouldn't make much sense to have some 12car 700s in blue and some in red if that colour difference was meant to mean something as you reduce the possibility of juggling things about if a unit becomes defective for example.

Also the point about different colours for different lengths doesn't apply to the 700s which will, as I understand it, be almost permanently fixed length (with a change requiring significant work in a depot and not likely to be undertaken on a daily basis).

Having all 700s in red, all 377s in green and all 365s in orange has no detriment because those units are not easily interchangeable anyway.

 

[jon0844]

There will be so many different routes and combinations, I think we'd need far too many colours!

Once the lines all merge, it won't be as important to separate them. Will the new TOC still refer to the TL and GN lines, for example? I doubt it, as there will be too many other branches needing their own name.

I think it will end up being one single livery, and hopefully just better information on the screens (and some screens updated, such as the near impossible to read 321 screens, or the broken 317 screens that flash or scroll random characters).

Of course, we could think out of the box and use multicoloured LED screens and then you could have coloured text or symbols to signify different routes.

 

[transmanche]

There will be so many different routes and combinations, I think we'd need far too many colours!

No need for each route to have its own colour (it's not Go North East!). Just a different livery for each of the four service groups (Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern and Gatwick Express) - just like SWT.

 

[Class377/5]

Sorry I think you missed my point about units of the same class.

It wouldn't make much sense to have some 12car 700s in blue and some in red if that colour difference was meant to mean something as you reduce the possibility of juggling things about if a unit becomes defective for example.

Also the point about different colours for different lengths doesn't apply to the 700s which will, as I understand it, be almost permanently fixed length (with a change requiring significant work in a depot and not likely to be undertaken on a daily basis).

Having all 700s in red, all 377s in green and all 365s in orange has no detriment because those units are not easily interchangeable anyway.

The colour lengthening won't apply to 700 of course but all other stock is not sensible. Note the 700 8 and 12 cars will inter work on 8 car railways as 12 car routes won't always have 12 cars on them and that the diagrammed plan currently.

Was actually stating just keeping it to four colours is the logical thing to do as they are captive on their own routes post 2018. But having colours showing length is still not a sensible idea.

 

[jon0844]

No need for each route to have its own colour (it's not Go North East!). Just a different livery for each of the four service groups (Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern and Gatwick Express) - just like SWT.

Gatwick Express, definitely.

But once the GN links up to the TL route and beyond, will there need to be different colours? I know some trains will still go into King's Cross, and obviously there are the Moorgate trains (so perhaps THEY could be different). However, I don't think that it's necessary.

Besides the core, where there will be lots of different trains with different destinations.. for places like my station (Hatfield) there won't be so many trains that I need them colour coded. I just need to have clear information on the front/side of the train, and sufficient information screens and audible announcements.

 

[transmanche]

But once the GN links up to the TL route and beyond, will there need to be different colours?

There might not be a need, but the TOC may choose to use different brands across the four service groups - as there isn't a natural name to use which encompasses the whole franchise area.

 

[Class377/5]

Gatwick Express, definitely.

But once the GN links up to the TL route and beyond, will there need to be different colours? I know some trains will still go into King's Cross, and obviously there are the Moorgate trains (so perhaps THEY could be different). However, I don't think that it's necessary.

Besides the core, where there will be lots of different trains with different destinations.. for places like my station (Hatfield) there won't be so many trains that I need them colour coded. I just need to have clear information on the front/side of the train, and sufficient information screens and audible announcements.

Hatfield will have just 365s to Kings Cross and 700s for Thameslink Core and beyond. The information provision will need to be spot on as many will need it. all routes via Farringdon or Blackfriars for Core services to give a clear indication?

 

[Lockwood]

I like the idea of the stock getting epically displaced, having a Great Northern service between Southampton and Brighton.

 

[Class377/5]

I like the idea of the stock getting epically displaced, having a Great Northern service between Southampton and Brighton.

Not going to happen like that. Stock will stay in its service area as now (bar possibility the 313s). There's no way a GN unit could reach Brighton as the only DC capable 365 are barred from the Core so would have to be sent the long way around requiring freight drivers. Not accidently possible.

 

[Lockwood]

Letting facts get in the way of a good joke...

 

[jon0844]

Let's hope the winner keeps the TSGN name.

"The train at platform 1 is the 10:05 Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern service to.. Oh, wait, it's gone. Never mind".

 

[transmanche]

Let's hope the winner keeps the TSGN name.

"The train at platform 1 is the 10:05 Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern service to.. Oh, wait, it's gone. Never mind".

There is no way that TSGN will feature in any brand names used. Nether will "Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern" (as a whole) be used.

 

[DJL]

Really it would make sense if the regions keep their current names, or something very similar too - since this is what passengers are used to

 

[jon0844]

Yes, I suspect that like FCC kept TL and GN, whatever the name it may then have an additional 'qualifier' as to its area. This doesn't necessarily have to be as it is today.

 

[Class377/5]

Letting facts get in the way of a good joke...

Humor fail by myself.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Let's hope the winner keeps the TSGN name.

"The train at platform 1 is the 10:05 Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern service to.. Oh, wait, it's gone. Never mind".

Or, during times of disruption, especially in the 'core' section..

"The train at platform 1 is the 10:05 NotSoGreatLink service to... Finsbury Park" :roll:

 

[jopsuk]

Let's hope the winner keeps the TSGN name.

"The train at platform 1 is the 10:05 Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern service to.. Oh, wait, it's gone. Never mind".

Especially if they decided (though it isn't in the spec) to run a Brighton-Kings Lynn all-stops.

 

[glbotu]

Not going to happen like that. Stock will stay in its service area as now (bar possibility the 313s). There's no way a GN unit could reach Brighton as the only DC capable 365 are barred from the Core so would have to be sent the long way around requiring freight drivers. Not accidently possible.

How likely is it that the "long way around" will be used as a diversionary route in the event of core disruption? (via Freight Terminal Junction, Camden Road, Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction). Or are there just not enough NLL/WLL paths.

 

[A-driver]

How likely is it that the "long way around" will be used as a diversionary route in the event of core disruption? (via Freight Terminal Junction, Camden Road, Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction). Or are there just not enough NLL/WLL paths.

No chance. Would be too difficult to keep up road knowledge for a start.

In the event if disruption in the core they will do what they do now-start services into Sussex at London bridge or blackfriars and start services to Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire at kings cross or at pancras/Kentish town.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

How likely is it that the "long way around" will be used as a diversionary route in the event of core disruption? (via Freight Terminal Junction, Camden Road, Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction). Or are there just not enough NLL/WLL paths.

As A-driver says... no chance!
Even if trains were sent on such a diversionary route, would a traveller from - for example - Welwyn Garden City to East Croydon really stay aboard, to get to their destination ? They would surely find it far easier and quicker to change at Finsbury Park, get the Victoria Line to Victoria, and catch one of numerous trains that call only at Clapham Junction en route to ECR

 

[DJL]

What % of passengers actually use stations outside central London on both sides of the core?

Not many I imagine.

Hence diverting all core trains via the WLL seems somewhat pointless as they will largely be empty!

(and the trains out of position argument doesn't help since the added time to go via the WLL would mess it all up anyway...)

I guess maybe 1 or 2 of the longer distance trains could be justified to be routed that way but no more