Thameslink Wimbledon loop "saved"

[OxtedL]

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

http://www.gov.uk/government/people/patrick-mcloughlin

Biography
Patrick McLoughlin was appointed Secretary of State for Transport in September 2012. He is the Conservative MP for Derbyshire Dales.

??

 

[tbtc]

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.

If we listen to all of the "stakeholders" then we'll get a railway where every line has a direct London service, everywhere in northern England gets a direct Manchester Airport service, everywhere south of the Thames will get a direct Victoria service and a direct Thameslink service...

...we could get a much better railway if we provided good connections and concentrated on having certain frequent routes.

Most places on the "loop" are relatively close to Northern Line stations for getting to "the City" etc - am really unconvinced that they are therefore a high priority for Thameslink too (and that's without considering any conflicting movements etc)

 

[W230]

Most places on the "loop" are relatively close to Northern Line stations for getting to "the City" etc - am really unconvinced that they are therefore a high priority for Thameslink too (and that's without considering any conflicting movements etc)

Yep. It will also continue to be, as it is now, the first casualty when there are delays/cancellations in the TL service.

 

[Panda]

http://www.gov.uk/government/people/patrick-mcloughlin


??

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-hammond

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport

Close enough though...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh the irony that this news comes on the day as a passenger is hit by a train in Harpenden (40 miles from Wimbledon) and many trains on the loop cancelled as a result.

If all trains terminated at Blackfriars, this would not be an issue today.

 

[mister-sparky]

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

Tunbridge Wells was only going to be peak only via London Bridge anyways, and that's still going to happen. It will be a "via Elephant" service that gets cut as a result.

 

[Class377/5]

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.

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.

This was the expected service plan until today...


Thameslink Route service by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr

I suspect that Bellingham is replaced by Victoria - Bromley South via Wandsworth Road now.

What has stuck me is fact the Maidstone has gone peak only. Pervious plans always had peak only as 12 cars. That means it looks like another 12 car service is being added to Core services off peak. Unless they tend to reduce the capacity on pervious plans.

I suppose it won't be long until we know for sure as service plan was expected to be announced this year. I wonder if next months franchise re-start announcement may contain the service plan.

Also note everything through Elephant & Castle is to be class 700 due to ATO being in effect north of the station (because of the junctions north into the Cote from all platforms).

Note as well that no SN service will terminate in the bays as none run (currently) via Herne Hill on a regular basis and there isn't any long term plan to allow access to the bays from London Bridge still.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I travelled (back in the day) when I lived in SW19 on the very first northbound service - the Loop has picked up a very substantial peak traffic over the years - much beyond the immediate City area - with very busy trains (affording an alternative to the crushed Northern line) - I dont agree with "everything must go to Luton" - as the locals are basically ECS from St Albans (I declare an interest there) - there are very good (normal) connections onto fast trains at Farringdon etc for Parkway , and there remains 2 tph "one seat journeys" for say Hendon to Luton. In terms of value - keeping the links open and running sounds a reasonable option , as terminating at Blackfriars would kill off peak traffic in particular stone dead. Personal views.

 

[Class377/5]

Oh the irony that this news comes on the day as a passenger is hit by a train in Harpenden (40 miles from Wimbledon) and many trains on the loop cancelled as a result.

If all trains terminated at Blackfriars, this would not be an issue today.

Think you should check your facts there as that had nothing to o with the problems around the loop. That was caused by weather.

 

[Panda]

Think you should check your facts there as that had nothing to o with the problems around the loop. That was caused by weather.

As per NR; trains southbound from Wimbledon today:

16:47 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train
17:19 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train
17:49 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train

 

[Class377/5]

As per NR; trains southbound from Wimbledon today:

16:47 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train
17:19 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train
17:49 This train has been cancelled because of a person hit by a train

Many trains? You seem to not notice pretty much all the loops were cancelled today.

 

[Panda]

Many trains? You seem to not notice pretty much all the loops were cancelled today.

I was simply relaying what I was told at Wimbledon earlier. The staff said "many trains" were cancelled because someone was hit by a train in the north.

As per the FCC website many loop trains are still running late and the reason given is still "due to a person hit by a train earlier".

 

[Class377/5]

I was simply relaying what I was told at Wimbledon earlier. The staff said "many trains" were cancelled because someone was hit by a train in the north.

As per the FCC website many loop trains are still running late and the reason given is still "due to a person hit by a train earlier".

Not that want to continue but actually you said cancelled yet only give examples of delayed. But let's not derail the thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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


--- 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

I had been under the impression that the previous intention had been to increase the Wimbledon loop to 4 trains per hour each way, which would have IMO more than made up for losing the direct services through London. Looks like under the new proposals, the line stays at 2 trains per hour. Unless my understanding is mistaken, this sounds like very bad news for the line. (Aside from the issue of all the conflicting train movements that will now be introduced south of Blackfriars, which on a line that busy can't possibly fail to reduce reliability)

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe, perhaps, when Crossrail 2 turns up, we might be able to detach the Sutton Loop from Thameslink and graft it on to it.

Depending on what kind of Crossrail 2 we get obviously.

 

[bicbasher]

Why is changing at Blackfriars such a big issue for Wimbledon loop commuters? Sydenham slow line passengers had an off-peak through service to Charing Cross, which was later reduced to evening and all day Sunday. This was eventually axed all together after Southeastern's High Speed service launched which meant those Southern paths were needed for SET services.

I can remember waiting for a train home from LB's platform 5 which was mainly delayed because the Southern service would be behind an already late FCC or Southeastern service.

If it's a choice between waiting for a delayed train due to issues in Bedfordshire or a local service which starts from Blackfriars, I'd choose the latter.

 

[BRX]

I'm a Wimbledon Loop user (my station is Loughborough Junction) and I'm a bit surprised by this decision (although I've been aware of the very vocal campaign locally to keep the through-London services).

As far as I'm concerned the main issues with the current service are:
- Overcrowding in the peak (sometimes impossible to get on a train at Loughborough Junction in the mroning)
- Unreliability, with events elsewhere on the network with the potential to cause chaos on the Loop with cancellations and consequently large gaps between trains.

There's no doubt that it's nice to have the convenience of the cross London service - I use it mainly to reach Farringdon for underground connections (and in the future, crossrail), and to get to Kings Cross St Pancras for access to mainline services from those stations and Euston. But it was my feeling all along that any campaign should have been for improvements to our service (more capacity/more frequent trains, mainly) in exchange for the loss of the cross-London services. The reality is as others have pointed out that the change at Blackfriars is hardly an inconvenient one and with incresed core frequency would not really add much to journey times.

Plus of course the benefits of isolating the loop from the North-of-London services.

It doesn't feel like this decision has been made on entirely rational grounds.

 

[Class377/5]

I had been under the impression that the previous intention had been to increase the Wimbledon loop to 4 trains per hour each way, which would have IMO more than made up for losing the direct services through London. Looks like under the new proposals, the line stays at 2 trains per hour. Unless my understanding is mistaken, this sounds like very bad news for the line. (Aside from the issue of all the conflicting train movements that will now be introduced south of Blackfriars, which on a line that busy can't possibly fail to reduce reliability)

It still may. We don't know about the bay service just trains going through the Core. The proposed London Bridge to Blackfriars via the loop could still happen.

Why is changing at Blackfriars such a big issue for Wimbledon loop commuters? Sydenham slow line passengers had an off-peak through service to Charing Cross, which was later reduced to evening and all day Sunday. This was eventually axed all together after Southeastern's High Speed service launched which meant those Southern paths were needed for SET services.

I can remember waiting for a train home from LB's platform 5 which was mainly delayed because the Southern service would be behind an already late FCC or Southeastern service.

If it's a choice between waiting for a delayed train due to issues in Bedfordshire or a local service which starts from Blackfriars, I'd choose the latter.

Because of all the disruption the Thameslink Programme caused. They were promised a improved service after three years of Core closures which saw their Central London trains axed for all of hat time. They only got them back fully recently. Sydenham passengers you speak of didn't get their trains terminated at New Cross Gate every weekend along with any major holiday like Easter, Christmas etc for years did they.

As for your comment over platform 5, most FCC services through London Bridge get hit with a delay, even the on times one as its that complex.

Seems your choice is not echoed by most using the loop. And that's the whole point. The people using have said they want this. So what's so wrong with that.

All this talk of operational issues is pointless as the current service sees all this going on. The few conflicts there are can be solved like now at Loughborough Junction or if needs be Blackfriars. It's just not that big a deal operationally.

 

[Panda]

Not that want to continue but actually you said cancelled yet only give examples of delayed. But let's not derail the thread.

I said cancelled and gave examples of cancelled. What are you on about?

 

[swt_passenger]

Tunbridge Wells was only going to be peak only via London Bridge anyways, and that's still going to happen. It will be a "via Elephant" service that gets cut as a result.

You seem have misread what I wrote - I did not suggest that trains from Tunbridge Wells were via Elephant and Castle at all. Here's the logic:

Originally, there were to be only 6 trains per hour up through E&C and then through the core. These were shown back in 2011 (London and SE RUS table 5.2) to be pairs of trains from Bellingham, Sevenoaks, and Maidstone East.

As of yesterday, they announced there'd now be 8 trains this way, of which 4 would be from the Wimbledon loop. This therefore required them to lose 2 trains (from the earlier proposed 6) from the E&C route through the core. The DfT announcement showed that these were the Bellingham pair, going by the explicit inclusion of Sevenoaks and Maidstone East. Hence, no further cut of a 'via Elephant' service is possible as you suggest.

So we now have eight trains up and through the core via E&C, therefore we also have to lose 2 trains from the previous 18 tph via London Bridge, because we still only have the 24 tph total available capacity north of Blackfriars.

I suggested they might lose Tunbridge Wells only because people in that area have been opposing diversion to Thameslink.

However, as Class377/5 then reminded us in post #36 above, it looks like the longer distance SE origins of Tunbridge Wells and Ashford had already been negotiated away beforehand (replaced by Dartford and Orpington) - so the possibility (of removal Tunbridge Wells) is overtaken by events anyway.

Edited to add:

I hadn't taken this on board earlier, but the prior abandonment of Tunbridge Wells is signposted in the Thameslink/Southern franchise consultation here:

Transfer of services from Southeastern in 2018
7.17 We have yet to confirm the exact scope of services that we will transfer from Southeastern in 2018 and we are seeking respondents’ views as part of this consultation. Current thinking is that in addition to Thameslink core services serving Sevenoaks, these will be expanded to include Maidstone East. It is also possible that in peak hours this may include some services from Dartford and Orpington.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/2719/consultation-thameslink.pdf

 

[jon0844]

There's no doubt that it's nice to have the convenience of the cross London service - I use it mainly to reach Farringdon for underground connections (and in the future, crossrail), and to get to Kings Cross St Pancras for access to mainline services from those stations and Euston. But it was my feeling all along that any campaign should have been for improvements to our service (more capacity/more frequent trains, mainly) in exchange for the loss of the cross-London services. The reality is as others have pointed out that the change at Blackfriars is hardly an inconvenient one and with incresed core frequency would not really add much to journey times.

One additional benefit is that when you get to Blackfriars and change to get onto the loop, you can board a totally empty train.

That's the one thing I'm going to miss when Thameslink trains start to run through the core and up the ECML. I can currently board an empty train at King's Cross, whereas now it will be a case of trying to get a seat at St Pancras.

 

[Class377/5]

You seem have misread what I wrote - I did not suggest that trains from Tunbridge Wells were via Elephant and Castle at all. Here's the logic:

Originally, there were to be only 6 trains per hour up through E&C towards the core. These were shown back in 2011 (London and SE RUS table 5.2) to be pairs of trains from Bellingham, Sevenoaks, and Maidstone East.

As of yesterday, they announced there'd now be 8 trains this way, of which four would be from the Wimbledon loop. This required them to lose 2 trains from the E&C route. The DfT announcement showed that these were the Bellingham pair, going by the explicit inclusion of Sevenoaks and Maidstone East. Hence, no further cut of a 'via Elephant' service is possible as you suggest.

So we now have eight trains up towards the core via E&C, therefore we also have to lose 2 trains from the previous 18 tph via London Bridge, because we still only have the 24 tph available capacity north of Blackfriars.

But remember the route via Elephant has looks like its gain an extra 2tph from Elephant in the last year. I do wonder are people confusing these announced Core services with everything via Elephant? The two are very different things.

From the consultation;

7.21 Many stakeholders are aware that Network Rail has recommended, in both the South London and London and South East Route Utilisation Strategies, that Wimbledon loop services should start and terminate at Blackfriars. Network Rail wishes to see trains presented to the Thameslink core punctually, and it sees the crossing moves that the Wimbledon loop trains have to make south of Blackfriars as potential conflicts with other trains, and thus a threat to punctuality. At peak times, from December 2018, it will be possible for up to 16 trains per hour to approach Blackfriars from the south route via Elephant & Castle, but for no more than eight of these to proceed through the Thameslink core. The other eight must terminate in the new platforms on the west side of Blackfriars station. All these trains will approach Blackfriars either from the Denmark Hill direction (including Catford loop trains) or from Herne Hill (including Wimbledon loop trains). The question to be decided is which six or eight trains (depending on whether 16 or 18 approach from London Bridge) go through the Thameslink core and which terminate. Trains that use these routes today come from Sutton, Wimbledon, Ashford (via Maidstone East), Rochester, Sevenoaks, Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House. We are seeking respondents' views on which of these service groups should run through the Thameslink core and which should terminate at Blackfriars.

So we are now sure there's a cut of 2tph to London Bridge. I suspect all services will be 12 cars now that way.

Now we have 8tph we don't know where thy are coming from. However the currently bitty Beckenham Junction and Kent House may go and get replaced with a proper metro all stations to somewhere on SET route into the bays. Could even be 12 (are platforms long enough)? Ashford is likely to be out tho, replaced by the Maidstone East service.

 

[swt_passenger]

But remember the route via Elephant has looks like its gain an extra 2tph from Elephant in the last year. I do wonder are people confusing these announced Core services with everything via Elephant? The two are very different things.

I've tried to be careful to only consider the trains that will go through the core in my figures above, and I think I have already covered the increase from 6 to 8 to the core on this route in my workings, but I can go back and highlight the points better.

Clearly there will have to be other trains (probably from the 'Southeastern' area?) heading into the bays in at least sufficient numbers to utilise the capacity made available by the 'missing' loop services.

It will be interesting to see if you can do another table (like the one you produced earlier) once any details become available.

 

[Class377/5]

I've tried to be careful to only consider the trains that will go through the core in my figures above, and I think I have already covered the increase from 6 to 8 to the core on this route in my workings, but I can go back and highlight the points better.

Clearly there will have to be other trains (probably from the 'Southeastern' area?) heading into the bays in at least sufficient numbers to utilise the capacity made available by the 'missing' loop services.

It will be interesting to see if you can do another table (like the one you produced earlier) once any details become available.

The table is ready to be updated, just not had the time to do it yesterday.

Has anyone noted that the announcement of the Maidstone East as peak only could mean a reduction in peak capacity through the Core as previously all peak only services were 12 cars and now we have an 8 car peak. With the Orpington and Dartford's being 12 cars, mean they need to add another 12 car service via London Bridge to balance the figures.

 

[fusionblue]

I don't want to go down the whole "it's not fair Bellingham loses its route while the loop keeps theirs" but i do want to know why anything from Denmark Hill to Sevenoaks was not extended to 12 coaches.
That would seem like a more appropriate trade-off.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do all the necessary stations north and south of London allow for 12 car formations? I think they mentioned a while ago that they don't actually want SDO to be used at all in the inner suburban area, although it could be possible at the extremities of certain routes.

In other words it could be a stop at Kentish Town or somewhere that defines the train length on the southern section. (Please don't consider that as a fact though - it's purely hypothetical for all I know.)

The 'scary version' is that the figures don't allow for a re-balance of 8 and 12 car routes - and a result of insisting that the Wimbledon trains run through is that there might be fewer 12 car trains overall without platform lengthening elsewhere on the network...

 

[Class377/5]

I don't want to go down the whole "it's not fair Bellingham loses its route while the loop keeps theirs" but i do want to know why anything from Denmark Hill to Sevenoaks was not extended to 12 coaches.
That would seem like a more appropriate trade-off.

That's a fair question however Elephant & Castle is only 8 cars (expect 7 car platform 1) and on a viaduct. That cost allow will make it very difficult to justify going to 12 cars on the Catford Loop.

Do all the necessary stations north and south of London allow for 12 car formations? I think they mentioned a while ago that they don't actually want SDO to be used at all in the inner suburban area, although it could be possible at the extremities of certain routes.

In other words it could be a stop at Kentish Town or somewhere that defines the train length on the southern section. (Please don't consider that as a fact though - it's purely hypothetical for all I know.)

The 'scary version' is that the figures don't allow for a re-balance of 8 and 12 car routes - and a result of insisting that the Wimbledon trains run through is that there might be fewer 12 car trains overall without platform lengthening elsewhere on the network...

No, final plan is for Welywn Garden City trains to use SDO on a few of the stations (Harringay & Hornsey) as they will be only 6 cars long under current plans. (While 6 car 313 whizz past non stop I might add.

There is scope for a extra 12 car route but I'm not fully looked into it (and don't have an idea what route it would be).

I'm still thinking that a 9 car loop would work ok. Few signals may need moving bu other than Mitcham Junction, don't know of any major issues around the loop. Especially using SDO for a single set of doors either end. Wimbledon could be extended to 12 cars in the forthcoming rebuild anyway.

 

[tbtc]

No, final plan is for Welywn Garden City trains to use SDO on a few of the stations (Harringay & Hornsey) as they will be only 6 cars long under current plans. (While 6 car 313 whizz past non stop I might add

Excuse my ignorance, but if there are four Welwyn services an hour provided by Thameslink, does this replace all of the Moorgate - Welwyn services (with all Moorgate services going the Hertford route instead)?

 

[Class377/5]

Excuse my ignorance, but if there are four Welwyn services an hour provided by Thameslink, does this replace all of the Moorgate - Welwyn services (with all Moorgate services going the Hertford route instead)?

No, believe its 2tph to Moorgate and 4tph to Thameslink.

 

[D1009]

As I recall there will be 2 tph Moorgate - Welwyn peak only. All other trains from Moorgate will go to or via Gordon Hill.

 

[Class377/5]

As I recall there will be 2 tph Moorgate - Welwyn peak only. All other trains from Moorgate will go to or via Gordon Hill.

Last published GN service plan was

All day

4tph Welywn Garden City - Thameslink Core
2tph Gordon Hill - Moorgate
2tph Hertford North - Moorgate
2tph Letchworth via Hertford North - Moorgate
2tph Welywn Garden City - Moorgate
2tph Cambridge stopper - Kings Cross
1tph Kings Lynn - Kings Cross
1tph Cambridge fast - Kings Cross
2tph Cambridge - Thameslink Core
2tph Peterborough - Thameslink Core

Peak

2-4tph Hertford North - Moorgate
2tph Peterborough - Kings Cross