Thameslink Wimbledon loop "saved"

[cjohnson]

Not sure yet what knock-on impact this will have on the rest of the proposed Thameslink service patterns, but looks like Wimbledon/Sutton services will carry on through beyond Blackfriars after all.

http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/...s_Wimbledon_Thameslink_loop_saved/?ref=twtrec

This morning the Government instructed Network Rail to ensure the service, which runs in a loop from Mitcham Eastfields via Sutton, Wimbledon and Tooting before continuing into central London via Blackfriars and out to St Albans and Bedford remains intact .

It was proposed this route should terminate at Blackfriars which would have forced passengers to disembark and change trains cutting off direct routes from Wimbledon and Sutton to north London, St Pancras International and further afield to Bedford and Luton.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A bit more on the DfT's website - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-safeguards-future-of-the-wimbledon-loop

Under the new proposals 8 Thameslink trains will run per hour via Elephant and Castle, including the 4 Wimbledon Loop trains, 2 from Sevenoaks via Bromley South and Catford, and 2 (peak only) from Maidstone East via Bromley South.

 

[Panda]

What a complete waste of time and effort!!

I would have thought that splitting the service in two, would hopefully mean that there's more chance of services actually running. Currently, if anything happens in Luton, it affect us down in the south. (Anything from cancelling trains altogether to trains simply not stopping on the loop stations at all to try and recover).

It is amazing to see that people are willing to give up efficiency for the sake of convenience. Just how convenient are these services really (other than the fact that it's the way for me to get to and from Central London where there's a toilet on the train)?

As for the stations served - most have faster access to Central London by other means. It's usually quicker for me to walk from Wimbledon Chase station to Raynes Park and then take a South West Trains service from there, than having to wait 30 minutes at Wimbledon Chase simply for the train to be cancelled.

The tube from Morden takes 35 minutes to get to King's Cross St Pancras, whereas the FCC service takes about 50 minutes from South Morden (and that's if the service is running and the train doesn't break down on the way).

From Wimbledon going to King's Cross, you've got two options - 38 minutes via SWT where the trains run every 3-5 minutes and you have a change to the underground or 42 minutes direct using FCC where there is only a train every 30 minutes and if that one breaks down, you have to wait another 30 minutes.

Further south, you get to Sutton, which has its own, much quicker routes into Central London and then same for the "other side" of the loop.

Other than a few marginal examples, I fail to see why so much time and energy was wasted campaigning for this. It's not like the service was going to be axed altogether.

 

[hluraven]

So 4 trains per hour through for one group, which means 4 less for another group. Parochial campaigning and who shouts loudest wins at its best.

 

[NSEFAN]

If Thameslink were to stop operating on the Wimbledon loop, who would take over?

Would there have been possibilities for London Overground or even the tram to take over?

 

[Wath Yard]

Good for the people on the Wimbledon loop. The railway does things like this all the time, we'll take your direct services off you so someone else who currently doesn't have one can benefit. About time someone stood up for themselves.

 

[swt_passenger]

If Thameslink were to stop operating on the Wimbledon loop, who would take over?

Would there have been possibilities for London Overground or even the tram to take over?

Highly unlikely. Apart from anything else LO are not supposed to run into any mainline terminus, as was discussed regarding Victoria in the SLL papers on TfL's website.

Trams - impossible in my opinion. What about the majority of the Wimbledon loop route that is part of SN's network anyway?

The route would have been almost certainly transferred to Southern. But now that Southern and Thameslink are to be merged the question had already become pretty much academic...

 

[cjohnson]

So 4 trains per hour through for one group, which means 4 less for another group. Parochial campaigning and who shouts loudest wins at its best.

I suppose it helps that the current Minister for Transport is also MP for Wimbledon...!

 

[Clip]

Good for the people on the Wimbledon loop. The railway does things like this all the time, we'll take your direct services off you so someone else who currently doesn't have one can benefit. About time someone stood up for themselves.

I used to user the loop years ago when I lived down that way and worked at the Cross. Just about everyone, no matter what time of day I used it, got off before kings cross thameslink, so in my view it was used by people going north that often.

Mulderpf sums it up perfectly for me, there are quicker ways to get north for most stations on the line.

 

[yorkie]

I also agree with mulderpf.

Does this not put the planned 24tph frequency in doubt now? There will be conflicting movements as a result of this decision!

 

[FGWman]

I thought one of the issues was that most of the platforms on the loop could not take 8 coach trains ?

 

[tbtc]

So 4 trains per hour through for one group, which means 4 less for another group. Parochial campaigning and who shouts loudest wins at its best.

You are right.

What we need is a re-organising of the lines south of the Thames to minimise conflicting movements, rationalise the number of temini served from certain places and try to introduce "turn up and go" frequencies (rather than having lots of half hourly routes).

What we are getting (if this news is anything to go by) is a squabble where nobody wants *their* station to lose links (even if the net result would be beneficial to their line - like getting a more reliable service for Sutton/ Wimbledon by no longer being caught up in Thameslink disruptions).

Sad news.

 

[87015]

You are right.

What we need is a re-organising of the lines south of the Thames to minimise conflicting movements, rationalise the number of temini served from certain places and try to introduce "turn up and go" frequencies (rather than having lots of half hourly routes).

What we are getting (if this news is anything to go by) is a squabble where nobody wants *their* station to lose links (even if the net result would be beneficial to their line - like getting a more reliable service for Sutton/ Wimbledon by no longer being caught up in Thameslink disruptions).

Sad news.

I disagree. The railway should be run for passengers not operational convenience. The peak hour loop trains are crush loaded - unable to board as far back as Streatham - so the services are quite clearly not anywhere near the useless ones some people are making them out to be and the vast majority of people are going beyond Blackfriars.

Both lines still getting through trains is a better deal than only one, there are enough crossovers between Loughborough Jn and Blackfriars to sort it all and it makes no difference where the train is going to moves at Blackfriars throat itself.

 

[cjohnson]

I thought one of the issues was that most of the platforms on the loop could not take 8 coach trains ?

8 coaches are fine (and indeed are used) on the loop. It's 12 that's not possible due to positioning of junctions at Tulse Hill and Herne Hill.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does this not put the planned 24tph frequency in doubt now? There will be conflicting movements as a result of this decision!

The same DfT announcement still refers to 16 tph joining the core from the London Bridge direction. Of course the flip side of this is that they no longer need to find 4 tph originating in the current SE network to transfer to the Thameslink/Southern combined franchise.

Amazing though, that after spending £100s of millions on reorganising the Blackfriars layout they still seem (publicly) no closer to deciding which services will ultimately use the bay platforms. None of NR's previously given reasons for the alteration, published in successive RUSs going back nearly 10 years, have actually gone away as far as I can see - unless the DfT have secretly agreed to full grade separation at Herne Hill, or something else totally off the wall...

Also, as posted a little while ago there's still the 8 car platform issue on the loop, (which prevents the possibility of those 4 tph ever being lengthened to 12 car) - and if 4 more 'SE routes' head for the bay platforms there are even more crossing moves than originally expected (at somewhere such as Herne Hill). Perhaps it gives an opportunity to make Blackfriars the terminus for somewhere else running in from the current SN 'metro area'...

 

[Panda]

the vast majority of people are going beyond Blackfriars.

The vast majority of anyone travelling into a London terminus go beyond that station. It would be interesting to see the number of people changing at Waterloo vs the number of people on the Wimbledon loop travelling beyond Blackfriars.

 

[tripleseis]

Most of the people who use the Wimbledon Loop seem to disembark at City Thameslink from my observations travelling from Herne Hill.

 

[cle]

Farringdon is also very busy, and only going to get more so with Crossrail.

I wonder if two of the four Victoria - Orpington slows could run to Blackfriars and terminate? Only Brixton would miss out.

 

[Nym]

Or maybe we could stop using railways as a political tool and think of the greater good by removing crossing movments, something we've spent a lot of money to try and get, and just terminate the dammed services at Blackfriars, for christ's sake it will be a 3min wait with a cross platform interchange on the northbound and not exactly the hardest change in the world southbound...

 

[87015]

Or maybe we could stop using railways as a political tool and think of the greater good by removing crossing movments, something we've spent a lot of money to try and get, and just terminate the dammed services at Blackfriars, for christ's sake it will be a 3min wait with a cross platform interchange on the northbound and not exactly the hardest change in the world southbound...

What crossing movements would be affected though? There will still be moves from the core to Elephant and Castle, where they go beyond there is irrelevant as any timetable planner could sort them out using the various available moves between Blackfriars and Loughborough Jn. How does a service to Herne H cause more conflicts at Blackfriars than one to Denmark H against trains to/from London Bridge?

 

[tripleseis]

Farringdon is also very busy, and only going to get more so with Crossrail.

I wonder if two of the four Victoria - Orpington slows could run to Blackfriars and terminate? Only Brixton would miss out.

Many users cross platform interchange at Herne Hill during the peaks. I imagine there's some demand for those kind of services but if the interchanges are convenient then routes should really stay fixed (allowing for changes if there are any service interruptions).

 

[Bedpan]

Why not run Luton - Blackfriars via the loop rather than Luton - St Albans as happens now. That would give passengers south of St Albans a greater choice of destination (because the two trains they lose would be replaced by something else) and it would give people on the loop (ex Mitcham Hackbridge and Carshalton, unless they travelled via Sutton) a direct service north of Blackfriars.

 

[D1009]

So 4 trains per hour through for one group, which means 4 less for another group. Parochial campaigning and who shouts loudest wins at its best.

Which group of services has been sacrificed as regards through running to enable this to happen?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why not run Luton - Blackfriars via the loop rather than Luton - St Albans as happens now. That would give passengers south of St Albans a greater choice of destination (because the two trains they lose would be replaced by something else) and it would give people on the loop (ex Mitcham Hackbridge and Carshalton, unless they travelled via Sutton) a direct service north of Blackfriars.

Or increase to 4tph round the loop both ways, and run 2 tph each from St Albans and Luton to Blackfriars via Sutton and Wimbledon. Two possibilites for stations on the loop, either Blackfriars in one direction and through the core in the other direction, or alternate trains to Blackfriars or the core in both directions? (IYSWIM)

IIRC one of the earlier proposals was for 4 tph from Blackfriars round the loop and then to London Bridge - presumably that's no longer on the agenda?

 

[bicbasher]

Oh well, the Wimbledon loop passengers will continue to receive a dire service when it could have been a lot more reliable by terminating at Blackfriars.

This line should be a local Southern Metro or London Overground service.

Will this line also still require 319s?

 

[swt_passenger]

Which group of services has been sacrificed as regards through running to enable this to happen?

Looks like the one obvious service that's been removed is the 8 car 2 tph stopper from Bellingham, but for the other 2 tph who knows. The various diagrams I've saved over the years all showed 6 tph through Elephant and Castle, and 18 tph through London Bridge, but they are now implying the 8/16 split that was forecast a few months back in a post by 377/5 so it could be any one of a number of different services from SN or SE territory that has been binned.

Perhaps they've found a corresponding station/line/area whose passengers were adamantly against diverting to Thameslink - was that Tunbridge Wells?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will this line also still require 319s?

No - it will have to have Class 700 for ATO through the core. Previous discussions hinged on it not needing the Thameslink stock to replace 319s if it was no longer a core service, but the exact opposite is now true.

 

[tsr]

Looks like the one obvious service that's been removed is the 8 car 2 tph stopper from Bellingham, but for the other 2 tph who knows. The various diagrams I've saved over the years all showed 6 tph through Elephant and Castle, and 18 tph through London Bridge, but they are now implying the 8/16 split that was forecast a few months back in a post by 377/5 so it could be any one of a number of different services from SN or SE territory that has been binned.

Perhaps they've found a corresponding station/line/area whose passengers were adamantly against diverting to Thameslink - was that Tunbridge Wells?

Probably something going South via Redhill. That station has had a pretty rubbish FCC service for years, so I imagine somebody doesn't think anyone will miss an extra 2tph which don't even exist yet!

 

[D1009]

Oh well, the Wimbledon loop passengers will continue to receive a dire service when it could have been a lot more reliable by terminating at Blackfriars.

This line should be a local Southern Metro or London Overground service.

Your point seems to imply the you consider a service requiring brand new rolling stock and enhanced infrastructure should be planned on the basis of the unreliability of the existing service?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Probably something going South via Redhill. That station has had a pretty rubbish FCC service for years, so I imagine somebody doesn't think anyone will miss an extra 2tph which don't even exist yet!

Were Caterham and Tattenham Corner involved in this at one time?

 

[bicbasher]

Your point seems to imply the you consider a service requiring brand new rolling stock and enhanced infrastructure should be planned on the basis of the unreliability of the existing service?

By not cutting off the loop from the Thameslink core, the likelihood of delays from the core or north of London will continue to happen, regardless of infrastructure improvements.

Considering it's a South London service which has stations nearby to other more regular services including the Underground, this is clearly a political move rather than of any practical use.

 

[D1009]

By not cutting off the loop from the Thameslink core, the likelihood of delays from the core or north of London will continue to happen, regardless of infrastructure improvements.

Considering it's a South London service which has stations nearby to other more regular services including the Underground, this is clearly a political move rather than of any practical use.

But surely this is the case wherever the trains go. It could be argued that not going as far south of London could improve reliability north of the Thames.

 

[Panda]

But surely this is the case wherever the trains go. It could be argued that not going as far south of London could improve reliability north of the Thames.

Precisely. At the moment an incident 40 miles away in Luton has a knock-on effect in Wimbledon and the other way around. With the line split in two, an incident in Luton, would have no effect to services in Wimbledon and passengers at St Pancras or City Thameslink, can still get home, albeit with a change at Blackfriars. As it stands at the moment, any issue in Luton would mean that these passengers have to find an alternate service altogether (which isn't very difficult to be honest, but that's surely a lot less convenient than having to change at Blackfriars).